Citation: 2020 RLLR 173
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 2, 2020
Panel: Veda Rangan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ameena Sultan
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-01296
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-01343, TB8-01358, TB8-01359, TB8-01360
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000302 – 000
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are citizens of Egypt and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1
[2] Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Rules,2 the claims for refugee protection were heard jointly. The minor claimants all relied on the Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative of the principal claimant. The principal claimant was appointed as the Designated Representative for his two children, according to subsection 167(2) of the IRPA.
MINISTER’S INTERVENTION
[3] In a letter dated April 9, 2018 the Minister notes pursuant to paragraph 170(e) of the IRPA, and according to section 29 of the RPD Rules, the Minister informed the Refugee Protection Division that he wishes to intervene in this claim by making observations and submitting evidence.3
[4] In his evidence he states that the principal claimant submitted a Canada Visitor’s Visa (CVV) application that was received on June 28, 2017. This application was approved and a multiple entry visa was issued on July 16, 2017. His spouse and the three children’s application were received on August 14, 2017 and they were approved for multiple entry visitor’s visa issued on October 19, 2017. The claimants entered Canada On XXXX XXXX, 2017.4
[5] Minister also submitted documents (Exhibits M-3 to M-5) regarding finger print analysis, biometric information, confirmation that the principal claimant was finger printed on March 21, 2017 in Dar Es Salaam, and a United States (US) multiple entry visa issued on March 22, 2017. The Minister’s information provided similar information for the female claimant. Exhibit M-4 has the biometric information for the female claimant, XXXX XXXX, confirmation that she was finger printed on June 20, 2017 in Dar Es Salaam, and issued a multiple entry visa on June 21, 2017, and in Exhibit M-5 there is the finger print comparison for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which was done on July 31, 2017.
Minister’s Submissions
[6] The Minister submits the principal claimant was in possession of a US visa in March 2017, but made no effort to enter the US and initiate a claim for refugee protection, despite the fact that he has shown a past willingness to separate from his family temporarily in order to flee persecution. His wife submitted her US visa application in June 2017 and his daughter submitted the US visa application in July 2017. The principal claimant’s Canadian visitor’s visa (CVV) was issued ahead of the rest of the family.
[7] The Minister submits that the claimants appear to have selected Canada specifically and have not behaved in a manner that those fearing persecution would. They have also shown a lack of urgency in initiating a claim for protection since they initially fled from Egypt, and the principal claimant has shown a lack of urgency in using the US and Canada visa’s that were at his disposal.
[8] For these reasons the Minister concludes that the claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Counsel’s reply to Minister’s submission
[9] Counsel submits that as per the claimant’s testimony, the claimant had applied for a US visa for business purposes. At the time of the application for this visa, he had no problem in Tanzania. His wife later decided to join him, and celebrate their wedding anniversary in the US. The children’s visa was rejected and she had planned to leave the children with the grandparents. However, while in Tanzania, they heard that the female claimant’s brother and the claimant’s friend had been arrested. In addition, the children had problems in Egypt from the perpetrator and they stopped going to school. The family joined the principal claimant in Tanzania as it was not safe for them to live in Egypt. When the children’s visa to the US was rejected, and the claimant’s continued stay in Tanzania became difficult, they decided to leave Tanzania for a safe haven. However, since the children were minors at that time, they had to find a place where all of them could go. Their visa’s to Canada was approved and so they travelled to Canada.
[10] Although the claimant had a CVV earlier, the female claimant received hers in October 2017. The principal claimant had to wind down his business, conclude some urgent legal matters regarding his taxes and business, and departed from Tanzania in December.
[11] Counsel submits that delay should not undermine subjective fear. She concludes that the claimants had valid reason for not seeking asylum in the US and a valid reason for not leaving earlier than XXXX 2017.
Panel’s response to Minister’s intervention
[12] The Minister submits that the claimants are not Convention refugees because the claimants appear to have selected Canada specifically and have not behaved in a manner that those fearing persecution would. In addition, they have also shown a lack of urgency in initiating a claim for protection since they initially fled Egypt and the principal claimant has shown lack of urgency in using the US and Canadian visa’s that were at his disposal.
[13] I questioned the claimant at length in regards to this matter. The principal claimant testified that he had applied for the US visa for business purposes only because at the time of his application he had no problem in Tanzania. Later, when his wife joined him in Tanzania she decided to join him on his trip to the US so they could celebrate their wedding anniversary together. The children’s US visa applications were rejected. She had planned to send the children to Egypt for a short stay with her parents. They had also planned to visit Canada, and hence the application for a CVV.
[14] During this time the principal claimant tried to get citizenship in Tanzania as he had established a successful business there. This application was rejected. The visit by the President of Egypt to Tanzania and the proposal for a treaty regarding the extradition of people who were opposed to the Egyptian government, was another problem for the claimants. The principal claimant testified that he would be unable to return to Egypt, and would also be unable to stay in Tanzania.
[15] The family did not have a US visa for the children and they were too young to be left behind with relatives that were also potential targets. At the time the principal claimant travelled to Tanzania, the female claimant and children had stayed behind in Egypt. However, they were targeted and the female claimant resigned from her job and the children stayed back at home from school.
[16] The peace and quite they enjoyed in Tanzania came to an end due to a political situation after the Egyptian President’s visit. The reason for the Minister’s intervention is that the claimant did not avail the US visa to leave Tanzania and delayed in leaving Tanzania for Canada.
[17] Delay has been recognized by the Federal Court as an important factor in assessing a claimant’s credibility and their subjective fear. It is reasonable to assume that persons with a well-founded fear of persecution will attempt to leave the country of persecution and seek refuge without unreasonable delay. The delay in this matter is not substantial. The principal claimant could not leave without his family. They were all potential targets. Even if the principal claimant had left earlier, the rest of his family could not stay in Tanzania for reasons explained above, and would not be able to return to Egypt. The family had their Canadian visa in October 2017.
[18] The delay in leaving the country does not undermine the principal claimant’s credibility and the allegation that he faces serious harm in Egypt if he and his family were to return.
[19] I accept the credible testimony of the claimant for delay in leaving Tanzania, 2 months after his family got the visa, and for not travelling to the US to make a claim to be reasonable. This aspect of the claim will not impact on my decision regarding their fear of harm in Egypt.
ALLEGATIONS
[20] In his Basis of Claim (BOC) Form,5 the principal claimant states that on March 22, 2014, when the army seized power and detained the elected President Mohammed Morsi, the claimant was arrested because of his affiliation with the Freedom and Justice Party. They raided his house, confiscated his cell phone, passport and other important documents. He was detained on October 6, in a detention centre for four days. After further investigation by the public prosecutor he was sentenced to nine months of incarceration from March 22, 2014 to December 14, 2014.
[21] On his release from prison, the claimant went to live in another part of town. Although he continued to be fearful of the government, he started his business. The claimant did this because he wanted to live in his own country and be close to his parents. He avoided any encounter with the security forces and when his friend was arrested, and his old house was stormed and raided, he left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016. In his BOC he states that, “they keep chasing me to arrest me.”6
[22] The principal claimant went to Uganda and stayed there until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016, after which he went to Tanzania and stayed there until XXXX XXXX, 2016. He then travelled from the transit city, Addis Ababa, and went to Nigeria where he lived until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016. As life was very hard there, he returned to Tanzania on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and stayed there with his family until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. During his stay in Tanzania, he had established a business and travelled extensively to conduct his business.
[23] While he was in Tanzania, his wife was followed to her school where she taught by strangers and the children became potential targets. It has to be noted that the female claimant was also active in the Freedom Justice Party which is the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood party.
[24] The principal claimant testified that he left Tanzania for several reasons such as he was unable to get passports for his children. The officials at the Egyptian Embassy refused to renew their passports and told them to go back to Egypt to do it. In addition, the President of Egypt had proposed an extradition treaty with Tanzania, which would allow Tanzania to return individuals to their country of origin, in this case Egypt, who have opposed the regime. The Egyptian parliament was also allowed to revoke the citizenship of those opposing the government and living abroad.
[25] The female claimant had moved to a different residence when a security agent came to her school and tried to get the address of her home.
[26] The principal claimant participated in political activities from his under graduate university days. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood and was also head of the cultural committee in the student union. He helped organise the demonstrations and had been arrested twice in 1995. In April 2011, the principal claimant and his wife joined the Freedom and Justice party and participated actively in the elections. When President Morsi was arrested, a year after being elected, the principal claimant joined the protest. He was arrested at his home and was imprisoned. Later on, December 14, 2014 he was found not guilty and released.
DETERMINATION
[27] I find the principal claimant to be a Convention refugee, and fears persecution by reason of political opinion and his wife, the female claimant, and the children to be Convention refugees by reason of their membership in a particular social group-family.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[28] The principal claimant’s identity and his family’s identities as nationals of Egypt is established by their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, which include certified true copies of their seized Egyptian passports.7
Credibility
[29] The claimants both testified and rendered a very credible testimony. There were no relevant inconsistencies in their testimony, or contradictions between their testimony and the other evidence before the panel. They testified in a very straightforward manner and gave direct, spontaneous answers. The principal claimant provided lots of details that gave credence and life to his story. At the same time, he never tried to embellish it. He was able to detail and corroborate through his oral testimonies the written story in his BOC. Considering all of the above, I believe what he has alleged in support of his claim.
[30] In addition to their oral testimonies, they have also provided numerous exhibits; his employment, the verdict at the 6th October Court, photographs regarding the raid at the female claimant’s apartment, and pictures of the protest.8
OBJECTIVE BASIS
[31] Claimant’s allegations are also corroborated by the objective evidence. This document states that there is a widespread political repression in Egypt for opponents of the regime, and even more so for the Muslim Brotherhood and the members of its affiliated party: The Freedom and Justice Party. Indeed, according to tab 2.1 of the National Documentation Package (NDP), the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Freedom and Justice Party, are organizations deemed illegal. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood is legally designated as a terrorist group by the Egyptian State.9
[32] According to tab 4.5 of the NDP, since Morsi’s destitution, Muslim Brotherhood members have been prosecuted on a large scale during collective trials, yielding hundreds of death sentences and approximately 40,000 people have been detained on political grounds. Most of them because of real or perceived affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. There are also violent assaults as well as forced disappearances, towards Muslim Brotherhood members.10
[33] In the NDP it states:
[t]he Guardian reports that on 23 September 2013, Egyptian authorities banned the Muslim Brotherhood and “a court ordered the freezing of all assets and also banned its spin-off groups.” Similarly, according to a document posted on the website of Egypt’s State Information Service, “a Cairn court for urgent matters banned all the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated bodies” and “ordered freezing all the assets and funds of the group.” A December 2013 Associated Press (AP) article reported that Egypt’s government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, thereby “criminalising all its activities, its financing and even membership to the group.” Media sources further report that the Freedom and Justice Party, the Brotherhood’s political wing, was dissolved by a court on 9 August 2014.11
[34] The same document refers to the treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood Leaders.
Treatment of Muslim Brotherhood Leaders
Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2017 report states that “[l]arge numbers of Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters, including nearly all of the organization’s senior leadership and [Mohammed] Morsi himself, were arrested following the coup, and arrests continued through 2016.”12
[35] The document on Treatment of Muslim Brotherhood’s Members and Suspected Members states there were mass trials and arrests. I quote the document here:
3.1 Mass trials
Al Jazeera reports that since the overthrow of Morsi, “hundreds of [Muslim Brotherhood] members and supporters have been put on trial and given harsh sentences in multiple cases. Rights advocates have repeatedly criticised the mass prosecutions, saying they lack guarantees for a fair trial.” Middle East Eye, an “online news organisation” focused on the Middle East similarly indicates that “[s]ince the army deposed Morsi … hundreds of [Morsi’s] supporters have been sentenced to death.”13
3.3 Arrests
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.”14
[36] I am of the view that the findings of fact, as noted above, certainly indicate that the claimant, should he return to Egypt, would face a very real danger of persecution on account of his perceived support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
[37] Moreover, the allegations made by the claimant are not inconsistent with the National Documentation Package. The U.S. Department of State Country Reports indicate that in Egypt:
[h]uman rights issues included unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government or its agents and terrorist groups; forced disappearances; torture; arbitrary detention; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; … [t]he government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses… 15
[38] The Country Reports further points out that, “[l]ocal rights organizations reported hundreds of incidents of torture throughout the year, including deaths resulting from torture.16
[39] Considering all of the above, I believe that the claimant has been involved in protests in Egypt against the authorities. This has profiled him as an opponent of the Egyptian regime, and as a result, the claimant had undergone interrogation and threats regarding his political involvement. The claimant has been involved in political activities during his undergraduate days and this continued even after he completed his education. As such, he would be seen as a political opponent of the regime should he return to Egypt. And, considering the evidence above, his whole family, would face a serious possibility of persecution on those grounds.
State protection
[40] Considering the evidence mentioned above, and that the State is the agent of persecution in this case, there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the State is unable or unwilling to provide the claimant’s with adequate protection.
Internal flight alternative (IFA)
[41] On the evidence before me and mentioned above, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants throughout Egypt. As such, there is viable interna! flight alternative.
CONCLUSION
[42] For the reasons cited above, I conclude that should the claimant return to Egypt, he would face more than a mere possibility of harm for a Convention reason. He is accordingly found to be a Convention refugee and his claim is accepted. I also conclude, based on the above analysis, that the female claimant and their three children are Convention refugees on the basis of their membership in a particular social group – family.
(signed) VEDA RANGAN
March 2, 2020
1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C.2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Rules, SOR/2012-256, Rule 55.
3 Exhibit 5, Notice of Intent to Intervene.
4 Ibid.
5 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) Form.
6 Ibid.
7 Exhibit 1 and 9.
8 Exhibit 9, Personal Documentation.
9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (September 30, 2019) item 2.1 at p. 31.
10 Ibid., item 4.5 at pp. 12-13.
11 Ibid., at p. 2.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid., at p. 7.
14 Ibid., at p. 12.
15 Ibid., item 2.1, Executive Summary.
16 Ibid., at p. 6.