Categories
All Countries Egypt

2020 RLLR 174

Citation: 2020 RLLR 174
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 23, 2020
Panel: Keith Brennenstuhl
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kaminker A. Hart
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-02758
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000384-000390

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (AKA XXXX XXXX), who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1

[2]       The Minister’s representative from Canada Border Service Agency (the Minister) intervened by way of documents only for the purpose of credibility and program integrity. I carefully considered the Minister’s written submissions in rendering my decision. I must clarify one point however, in her submissions, the Minister claimed that “[t]he claimant declared that the entire content of the Basis of Claim (BOC) and attached documents were interpreted to him and that the information he provided was complete true and correct.”2 and in fact he did not make such a declaration. The claimant is fluent in English and in his BOC declared that he is able to read English, and that he fully understood the entire content of the form and all attached documents. The BOC was never interpreted to him.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The claimant’s allegations are described in detail in his BOC.3 They can be summarized as follows.

[4]       In June 2010, when Mubarak was still the president of Egypt, Khaled Said was brutally killed in police custody sparking outrage in the country and prompting the “We are all Khaled Said” movement. At this point the claimant joined Kefaya (the Egyptian Movement for Change). Kefaya began speaking out against corruption of the police and the passing of the presidency to the son of Mubarak.

[5]       Kefaya and others called for a peaceful protest on January 25, 2011. By the end of the day thousands of people had joined the protest, and for the next eighteen days the protesters demanded that Mubarak leave. On January 28, 2011, classified as “Black Friday” by the media, the police moved in on the protesters and many protesters were killed as the police were using rubber bullets and normal bullets to quell the crowds. The claimant’s friend was killed and another friend lost both eyes from rubber bullets. The claimant was hurt from the pushing and pulling of the protesters. Mubarak stood aside as president and the army took control of the country.

[6]       In 2012, a democratic election was held and Morsi for whom the claimant voted, came to power as president.

[7]       From September 2012 until May 2016, the claimant did gXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX He returned to Egypt in XXXX 2016 to commence work. While he was in Canada, Morsi was deposed and Abdel Fattah El Sisi came to power with the backing and support of the military. He brutally repressed any dissent against him, jailing thousands of people he saw as opponents.

[8]       On returning to Egypt the claimant met with Kefaya friends and they discussed the disappearance of their friends.

[9]       On January 25, 2017, the claimant was arrested at a celebration on Kasr Al Nile Bridge where there was a celebration of the sixth anniversary of the 2011 revolution. He was detained for forty-two days during which he was interrogated and tortured. He was accused of being involved in illegal activities and told never to get involved in these things again. He was accused of being Sufi and told that it would be held against him. He was never charged.

[10]     On June 21, 2017, the claimant was once again arrested. He was taken to the Heliopolis Psychiatric hospital where he was confined for fifty days. He was drugged and subjected to electric waves to his brain. On his release he was told that he was better and therefore could leave.

[11]     He applied for a Temporary Resident Visa for Canada in August 2017, arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX2017, and made his refugee claim in February, 2018.

DETERMINATION

[12]     I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Egypt based on the grounds in section 96 of the IRPA.4

ANALYSIS

Identity

[13]     I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt is established by the documents provided including his National Identity Card and a certified true copy of his Egyptian passport.5

Nexus

[14]     I find that he has established a nexus to section 96 of the IRPA by reason of political opinion, real and perceived.6

Credibility

[15]     I find the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore, I believe what he has alleged in support of his claim. He testified in a straightforward manner and, there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony, or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained. The claimant submitted a letter from his mother that corroborates his detention in prison for forty-two days and his detention in the Heliopolis Psychiatric hospital for fifty days, as well as a letter from his friend in Egypt confirming the claimant’s active membership in Kefaya.7 I have no reason to discount these documents.

[16]     The claimant also submitted country condition documents similar to reports found in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt.8

[17]     The Minister expressed concern that the claimant at his refugee intake interview, declared that he had never been refused a visa to Canada or any other country, whereas the Biometrics from the United States (U.S.) reported that the claimant actually applied for two non-immigrant visas for the U.S. and was refused in 2013 and 2014. At the hearing the claimant explained that he had completely forgotten about the applications, and that at the time he was a student at XXXX XXXX and wanted to visit the U.S., but was refused visas because of his lack of finances. In my view, this is a reasonable explanation for his failure to declare the visa applications. In any event, I do not find that this impugns the claimant’s overall credibility.

[18]     The Minister indicates that the claimant had been in Canada for a lengthy period and was aware of the chaos that was occurring in his country, but yet chose to go back to Egypt in XXXX 2016. The Minister contends that he re-availed himself to his country knowing that his friends had been in danger and he too could be part of the arrests. According to the claimant he left Canada when he did, because his job placement had ended and his visa was about to expire. He added that up to that point intime, he had never been harassed by the Egyptian authorities due to his antiĀ­regime sentiments so he had no subjective fear of returning to Egypt to start work. I find this explanation reasonable. In my view the claimant did not, under these circumstance, re-avail.

[19]     The Minister points out that the claimant applied for and received a Temporary Resident Visa for Canada in August 2017, and that he only came to Canada in XXXX 2017, and subsequently made a refugee claim in Canada in February 2018. “The Minister contends that his delay in leaving Egypt and a delay in making his refugee claim in Canada show that there are many questions to his credibility and veracity of his claim.”9 The claimant explained that his delay in leaving Egypt was directly related to his need to raise fonds for his flight to Canada and to support himself in Canada. He did this by selling his inheritance, a piece of land given to him by his father. This, he explained, took time and was the primary factor for his delay in leaving Egypt. As for his delay in Canada in making his refugee claim, I would note that the claimant came to Canada on a valid Temporary Resident visa, and given the visa, there was little risk that the claimant would have been removed to Egypt, by the Canadian authorities at any point prior to making his claim in February 2018. Given these circumstances, I do not draw a negative inference from the delay in making his claim

Objective basis of future risk

[20]     In consideration of the entirety of the evidence including the claimant’s personal profile and his particular situation, I accept that the claimant will be perceived as a political opponent upon return to Egypt. As such, and based on the documentary evidence set out below, I find that the claimant has established a future risk that he will be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention, beating, torture, and enforced disappearance at the hands of the government or its agents if he were to return to Egypt.

[21]     The fact that he faces this risk is corroborated by the NDP for Egypt (version September 30, 2019). According to this objective evidence, the Egyptian authorities are known for their repression of freedom of expression and association, notably repression of those who are considered political opponents. There are numerous reports regarding political opponents that indicate the members of the Egyptian military have committed acts which amount to human rights violations including arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killing.10

Nature of the harm

[22]     This harm, in my view, clearly amounts to persecution.

State protection

[23]     As the agent of persecution is the Egyptian governmental authorities, I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection from the Egyptian government in light of the claimant’s particular circumstances.

Internal flight alternative

[24]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt given the objective evidence that the Egyptian authorities operate similarly throughout the country. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to this claimant.

CONCLUSION

[25]     Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee. Accordingly, I accept his claim.

(signed)           KEITH BRENNENSTUHL

January 23, 2020

1  The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

2 Exhibit 5, Notice of Intent to Intervene.

3 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) form.

4 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, section 96.

5 Exhibit 4, Claimant disclosure documents, pp. 1-4; Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

6 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, section 96.

7 Exhibit 4, Claimant disclosure documents.

8 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (September 30, 2019).

9 Exhibit 5, Notice of Intent to Intervene.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP for Egypt (September 30, 2019), items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6.