Citation: 2019 RLLR 212
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 14, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Chantal Ianniciello
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06478
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003695-003698
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and her minor daughter, the joined claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as citizens of Egypt who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).1 The claimants’ identities have been established by copies of their passports.2
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The principal claimant is a XXXX-year-old woman who is a victim of gender-based persecution, namely domestic violence. The principal claimant fears gender-based persecution for her daughter, namely female genital mutilation (FGM); her daughter is XXXX years old. The claimants left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. The claimant was subject to an arranged marriage on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2008. The claimant describes life with her ex-husband as a “living hell,” including daily beatings and verbal abuse. The claimant was able to escape to Qatar for a time, but was not able to regularize her immigration status in Qatar. The claimant left Qatar in XXXX 2018. The claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 and signed her Basis of Claim (BOC) on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.3 The panel has reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution4 in this decision.
DETERMINATION
[3] The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act because they would face a serious possibility of gender-based persecution if they return to Egypt.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm
[4] The claimants submitted supporting documents, including identity documents and news articles on the prevalence of FGM and violence against women and girls in Egypt.5 The objective evidence supports the claimants’ fear of return to Egypt and indicates that among the most significant human rights abuses in Egypt is violence against women and girls, including sexual violence by military personnel; the evidence further notes that the government did not generally take steps to investigate, prosecute or punish officials who committed human rights abuses.6 The objective evidence also indicates that authorities rarely intervene in domestic violence cases.7 Reports indicate that spousal violence in common in Egypt and there are very few mechanisms in place to protect women and violence against women goes virtually unpunished and there are some reports that authorities are dismissive or abusive to women who report domestic violence.8
[5] The objective evidence also indicates that the prevalence of FGM in Egypt is high, around 87% and is typically performed between birth and the age of 17.9 The primary reasons for FGM cited are tradition and religion; approximately 90% of the population is Muslim and Islam is the state religion.10 Despite FGM laws, enforcement is still insufficient in Egypt and FGM continues to be carried out by health professionals.11 Finally, Egypt’s human rights crisis continues unabated:
Women and girls continued to face inadequate protection from sexual and gender based violence, as well as gender discrimination in law and practice. The absence of measures to ensure privacy and protection of women reporting sexual and gender-based violence continued to be a key factor preventing many women and girls from reporting such offences. Many who did report offences faced harassment and retaliation from the perpetrators or their families. In some cases, state officials and members of parliament blamed victims of sexual violence and attributed the incidents to their “revealing clothing”. In March a young student was attacked and sexually assaulted by a mob in Zagazig city, al-Sharkia governorate. Instead of arresting the perpetrators and bringing them to justice, the Security Directorate in al-Sharkia governorate issued a statement mentioning that by “wearing a short dress” the victim had “caused the mob attack”.12
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
[6] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel find that there is not adequate operationally effective state protection available to the claimants in their particular circumstances. Further, the panel finds that it is not objectively reasonable to expect the claimants to relocate in Egypt in their particular circumstances as a young single mother with few resources and the absence of state protection available to them. Accordingly, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to them.
CONCLUSION
[7] For the forgoing reasons, the panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.
(signed) Kerry Cundal
January 14, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
2 Exhibit 1.
3 Exhibit 2.
4 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, November 13, 1996.
5 Exhibit 4.
6 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, June 29, 2018, Item 2.1.
7 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.
8 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.5 Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY104706.E.
9 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.
10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.
11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.
12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.