Citation: 2019 RLLR 211
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 18, 2019
Panel: J. Schmalzbauer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jessica Lipes
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06403
Associated RPD Number(s): VB8-06404, VB8-06405, VB8-6406
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003624-003629
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “associate claimant”), as citizens of Egypt, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “minor children”) who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act” or IRPA).1
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the adult claimants put forth in the Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.2 The principal claimant had submitted that for his entire life he and his family have been victims of racial discrimination due to their identities as Nubians. The principal claimant detailed in his narrative having been repeated harassed by authorities and arrested, detained and threatened to stop what he was doing in asking for the rights of his people, including land rights. The principal claimant and the associate claimant were married in 2014 but he was unable to acquire residency rights for his wife in Qatar where he had been working for over a decade. The adult claimants had their first child in the United States (U.S.), they had made attempts to remain in the U.S. through immigration channels but returned to Egypt and Qatar in 2015.
[3] Their second child, was conceived in XXXX. The associate claimant became scared about being forced to circumcise her daughter as is custom. The principal claimant was laid off from his position in Qatar and the family again travelled to the U.S., where their daughter was born.
DETERMINATION
[4] The panel finds that the adult claimants are Convention refugees, as they do have a well- founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in Egypt.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] The panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that the adult claimants are nationals of Egypt, considering the certified copies of their Egyptian passports.3
Credibility
[6] The duty of this panel is to find if there is sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimants would be persecuted if they returned to Egypt.
[7] The principal claimant was questioned as to his political opinions and beliefs and he was genuine and credible as to his political knowledge, and I find that more likely than not that these are deeply held beliefs and concerns and that he has a right to share those opinions and belief. The claimant submitted Facebook posts from 2011 onwards regarding the political situation in Egypt.4 Overall, I accept that the claimants are of Nubian descent and that the principal claimant has been repeatedly targeted for discrimination, including political repression for his identity and political opinion as an Egyptian of Nubian descent.
[8] According to the World Dictionary of Indigenous and Minority Peoples for Egypt 2017:
Frustration has mounted for Egypt’s ethnic minority Nubian community, culminating on 2 January 2017 in the first ever arrest of Nubian activists in direct relation to their struggle against the state. Six were charged with gathering illegally, protesting without a permit, and attacking security forces, after being detained by police on their way to protest a new presidential decree concerning land ownership. They sought to voice opposition to Presidential Decrees 355 and 498, issued in August and November, which stipulate the confiscation of 1,100 acres of land and could yield a new wave of forced evictions of Nubians already forcibly uprooted from their historical homeland with the construction of the Aswan High Dam in the 1960s. A sit-in demonstration in late November 2016 succeeded in pressuring the government into negotiations and Nubian activists and civil society organizations threatened to pursue international arbitration, but suspended their campaign to allow the state to resolve the issue.5
[9] In the U.S. DOS report, that Nubians face discrimination, harassment. It speaks of the political arrests and the resulting protests.6
[10] Further country condition evidence before the panel further supports his allegations of political repression:
A February 2017 Reuters article states that “[h]uman rights groups estimate [that] about 40,000 people have been detained for political reasons” since Morsi was deposed Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report for 2017 similarly indicates that civil society organizations “estimate that as many as [40,000] people were being detained for political reasons as of 2016, most of them for real or suspected links to the Muslim Brotherhood”[…]In its 2016 report entitled Egypt: ‘Officially, You Do Not Exist’: Disappeared and Tortured in the Name of Counter-terrorism, Amnesty International states that a “pattern of abuse” that includes arbitrary arrests, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances by state agents became “particularly evident since March 2015[…]According to lawyers involved in their cases, around 90% of those who are subjected to enforced disappearance are subsequently processed through the criminal justice system on charges such as planning or participating in unauthorized protests or attacking members of the security forces.”7
[11] Currently the situation is devolving for those individuals wanted by authorities for questioning on their political or imputed political opinion given the new Emergency Law.
While the exact details of the Emergency Law and how it will be applied were unclear at the publication date, it is likely that the military will be granted extended powers. DFAT assesses that detentions and arrests are likely to increase as a result of the declaration of a nation-wide state of emergency. Sisi also proposed the establishment of a Supreme Council to combat Terrorism and extremism, which would consider new powers for police and intelligence investigators and allow for the fast-tracking of terrorism cases through the court system.8
[12] Further evidence submitted by the claimants further supports the increasing repression from the state against Nubian activists.9
[13] The principal claimant has been active on social media, and according to the International Journal of Not for-Profit Law:
Egypt’s parliament preliminarily approved the cybercrime draft law on May 14, 2018. The draft “Anti- Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law” primarily targets the illegal use of private data and other crimes that can take place online, but some of its provisions use broad terminology that could be used to penalize lawful online expression and shutter independent media outlets.10
Concerns have been raised of the authorities’ capacity and legal ability to target and silence online dissent from the new law.
[14] The principal claimant, which I accept, was arrested and interrogated due to his political opinions. The principal claimant submitted evidence of his online posts against the political situation which the panel has found to be credible. I do find that the risk of loss of liberty is a serious infringement on the human right to liberty and personal integrity. Given the objective evidence of the situation of similarly situated persons, and the claimants’ evidence of having been previously sought, I find that there is more than a serious possibility of political persecution for the claimant throughout Egypt.
State Protection
[15] State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case, as the particular agent of harm is the state authorities. The country condition evidence supports that many citizens are deprived of their rights of due process, are arrested without warrants, face harassment and physical and psychological abuse from officials throughout Egypt.11
Internal Flight Alternative
[16] The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. There is no obligation for the claimants to be in hiding. The state has control of its territories and has used state authorities in order to intimidate the claimant. The principal claimant’s profile is to such a level that it would more likely than not continue to cause the claimant to be persecuted throughout Egypt.
CONCLUSION
[17] For the foregoing reasons the panel finds that, principal and associate claimants are Convention refugees as set out in section 96. Therefore, their claims are accepted.
U.S. Born Minor Children
[18] The principal claimant acted as the designated representative for the minor children. No evidence was adduced and no submissions were made against the U.S. as a country of persecution or risk.
[19] I find that no evidence was adduced that the minor claimants would face a serious possibility of harm amounting to persecution, or that they would on a balance of probabilities, face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture whether under section 96 or section 97(1) of IRPA. Since the minor claimants have adduced no evidence of a risk of return to the U.S., their claims for refugee protection are rejected.
(signed) J. Schmalzbauer
April 18, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
2 Exhibit 2.
3 Exhibit 1.
4 Exhibit 4, Item 5.
5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, March 29, 2019, Item 12.2.
6 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.
7 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 4.5 Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY105804.E.
8 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1 .8.
9 Exhibit 4.
10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 4.2.
11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.