Citation: 2019 RLLR 210
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 13, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ronaldo Yacoub
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-12354
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-12373, TB7-12379
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003355-003358
[1] MEMBER: We are back on the record and the interpreter has been dismissed. I am going to give a decision at this time and there’s no further questions, as I said before, needed from counsel or submissions, and I’m prepared at this time — and counsel has waived translation, the claimants are both present at this time.
[2] This decision is being rendered orally in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the principal file is TB7-12354, and the adult claimants are present today and the father is the designated representative with respect to the minor child, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the father is the principal claimant here.
[3] Now, the gender guidelines at Guideline 4 have been also considered with respect to the female claimant for both Egypt and Libya.
[4] This decision is being rendered orally today and a written form of these reasons may be edited for syntax, spelling, grammar, references to the applicable case law, legislation and exhibits may also be included.
[5] I find that the principal claimant is a citizen of Libya and of Egypt. The female claimant is a citizen of Egypt, and the minor child, claimant, is a citizen of Egypt.
[6] Now, with respect to, and I concluded this based on the certified true copies of their passports which were provided in Exhibit 1, as well as by their testimony and birth certificates provided as well, so therefore on a balance of probabilities I have concluded that the principal claimant has full citizenship, that of Libya and Egypt, the female claimant only of Egypt, and the minor child has the citizenship of Egypt.
[7] In this case, I find that you are all persons in need of protection, which you have made a claim against — or, sorry, pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered the issue of nexus, which is whether you have — your fear or persecution is linked or connected to the convention grounds. I have found that it is not connected to the convention grounds in your countries of nationality, given that it would be with respect to Ms XXXXin Libya, but she’s not making a claim — she’s not a citizen of Libya, therefore… I’ll break this down slower.
[8] With respect to Libya, let’s start with Libya. The principal claimant fears the militias as they have in the past tried to extort him and have him pay. They know he had a business, a successful business/store, and they were trying to get money from him. In Libya there is much — the militias are divided by tribes as well. He has spoken how he was living in his tribal area of Benghazi. They tried to extort him, he was injured in a shelling and lost his leg on that occasion. His family — he lived there with his wife and child, and they lived there until 2013 when the war became unbearable and when the militias were threatening him. So he fled to Egypt where he had citizenship there as well.
[9] He also has been in contact with his family members who live in Libya and who tell him that the militias keep asking about him and want to know where he is, and they advise him not to return.
[10] Because you have another country of citizenship, Mr. XXXX, I am not making any conclusion about your claim against Libya, I am then going to look at your situation in Egypt, and that is where also your wife and child have their citizenship. So I’m not drawing a conclusion with respect to whether you would be at risk in Libya, but just to say that I see that you would, you would face risk there. Part of the reason it the country situation in Libya, and I just want to speak briefly about that situation before I leave the whole topic of Libya.
[11] If you face the problems with the militias, you would not be able to obtain any type of protection from government or the state to help you. Libya is currently in a state of civil war, there is no unified government or standardized method of delivering any type of security services. There’s an uncertainty with respect to the political and security situation, and this situation leads me to conclude that there would be no state protection for you if you were there with your family, none for your family, and there would not be an internal flight alternative available to you as well.
[12] Furthermore, if your wife were there she would be at risk of gender-related persecution, as war — unfortunately, rape is rampant in war, and she would be at risk of that, so of sexual assault.
[13] The position of the United Nations suggests that internal flight is not reasonably available in Libya, therefore now I look to Egypt.
[14] The situation with the family in Egypt, according to the allegations in the basis of claim form, which I won’t repeat, basically the principal claimant’s first wife, as he had the two wives, and they were concurrent at one point until he divorced the first wife, that that was legal in Egypt. The problem was despite the first wife agreeing that he could take on the second wife, XXXX XXXX, she later changed her mind and then she had her brothers, there are seven of them, cause false threats and assaults against the principal claimant, threats against his wife, and there was a threat on kidnapping their son, XXXX, in order to retaliate or make the principal claimant suffer for his having scorned her or for having taken a second wife.
[15] Now, this brings us to the issue. So this is where there’s no nexus to the convention definition, I believe. This is where what you fear, what your whole family fears, is not — I believe it’s a personal life risk, but it is not a nexus because there’s no convention ground that will, in my opinion, cover this.
[16] However, on a balance of probabilities, which is the threshold I have to use, I find that there is, on a balance of probabilities, a personalized risk to your lives in Egypt. There’s also no state protection, in my opinion, given that your ex-wife’s brother worked in XXXX XXXX department in Egypt. If he were merely a government employee perhaps it wouldn’t be the same. But given that you’ve provided evidence by way of your testimony and your belief that he is an XXXX XXXX XXXX and the documentary material is clear with respect to the human rights situation deteriorating in Egypt where many human rights groups have spoken out against how the government in Egypt has, on many occasions, basically — it is respecting the human rights of the citizens.
[17] The authorities in Egypt arbitrarily restrict the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, any opposition to them is basically taken in for questioning and they will not tolerate anyone being in any type of opposition to the government or expressing it in anyway.
[18] But apart from that, the question is on the street level, would the police protect you? You’ve testified how this brother, how police officers were even present at the assault when you were stabbed, Mr. XXXX. Now, that’s not to say all the police are corrupt or would do that, but given the fact that the documentary material speaks about that there’s a very high level of corruption in Egypt and that this brother who is one of the persons who has been threatening your family, given that he is also in the XXXX XXXX and the documentary material makes it clear, in my opinion, that a person who has those types of connections, with the corruption that is rampant in Egypt, can accomplish harming you if you were to try to go elsewhere.
[19] So I don’t believe there’s an internal flight alternative for you and your family and I don’t believe that the state will adequately and effectively protect the three of you if you were to try to get help against them. You did file a report against them and the report, which is in evidence, didn’t go anywhere. If anything, the other family filed counter-charges against you, for which you’ve testified that you were then having to appear in court.
[20] The documentary material also speaks about prolonged detention for people in Egypt, sometimes without charges or without a trial, and how the Egyptian authorities have misused many of their powers against their own citizens, according to many human rights groups throughout the world.
[21] So for all of these reasons, I find on a balance of probabilities that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, that you are all persons in need of protection under Section 97(1) because your life is at risk in Egypt. Therefore, these three claims are now allowed.
[22] Thank you.
[23] CLAIMANTS: Thank you.
[24] MEMBER: Do you understand? Have a good day. Thank you, counsel.
– – – UPON RECESSING – – –
– – – UPON RESUMING – – –
[25] MEMBER: We’re back on the record. I just wanted to comment and say with respect to credibility, I had my concerns with respect to certain omissions, and I considered them a lot throughout the hearing, and I found your explanations reasonable for why these omissions occurred. You did mention them, they were mentioned as attacks in the basis of claim form. The only thing is that they were not — you did not provide the dates specifically. But you did mention them. I understand and I found your explanations reasonable for you, Ms XXXX, because they were very painful to talk about and to put down and for you, sir, because you didn’t have the proof, you only had the proof of one, and you did mention it and it is in your evidence.
[26] So overall — and I found that this doctor’s letter explaining that you have XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX helps me to understand why you kind of would not answer my questions. I don’t believe you were trying to be evasive.
[27] So, for all of these reasons, I have accepted your credibility, and therefore your allegations. That’s why I’ve also accepted you as persons in need of protection.
[28] This hearing is now concluded. Thank you and good day to all.
– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –