Citation: 2020 RLLR 176
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 4, 2020
Panel: D. Willard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ali Dakakni
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-25377
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000697-000704
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: So, sir, and Madam, I am ready to give you my decision. I want you to know that it is a split decision, so it is not the same decision for everyone. Okay.
[2] So, for five of you the decision is a positive decision, but for XXXX is a negative decision. Okay. I am going to … I imagine that your counsel’s probably spoken with you about that already. He’ll probably give you more information after (inaudible), but I do need to give my reason on the record, so I invite you to listen carefully. You don’t have to speak at this time. Okay.
[3] CLAIMANT: Okay.
[4] MEMBER: Okay. This is an oral decision in the claim for … claims for refugee protection of the following individuals. I do want to note that this is a split decision, so this initial decision is just for five of you. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the file number is TBS-25377; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TBS-25449; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TBS-25485; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TBS-25486; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the file number is TBS-25487. For these claimants my oral decision is the following:
[5] I’d like to note that the claimants are seeking protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They seek protection here in Canada from their country of citizenship Egypt.
[6] The basis of their claims for the adult claimants is their anti-government political opinion pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and for the minor claimants it’s their membership in a particular social group as members of their family, their immediate family, pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[7] I do wish to note that these claims were heard jointly and the male claimant, the principal claimant, was appointed the designated representative for the minor claimants pursuant to Section 167(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He was also appointed the designated representative for XXXX XXXX XXXX file number TBS-25488 whose decision will follow this decision.
[8] I do also wish to note that the written version of these reasons will not be edited for spelling, syntax, grammar, nor applicable case law.
[9] Allegations:
[10] The details of the claimant’s allegations are found in the male claimant’s Basis of Claim Form at Exhibit 2.1. To summarize, he indicates that he and his spouse are both citizens of Egypt, that they were born there, and that they hold citizenship and permanent … permanent residence in no other country.
[11] They indicate that they have lived for a number of years in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Specifically, the male claimant indicates that they … that he lived in Saudi Arabia from 2007 to 2010. He indicates that he was in the United Arab Emirates from XXXX 2010 to XXXX 2016, and then again in Saudi Arabia from XXXX 2016 to XXXX 2018. In XXXX 2018 he did return to Egypt and after that in point in time, traveled to the United States with his spouse in XXXX of 2018.
[12] He indicates that events transpired in Egypt while he was in the United States with his family members, and that he learned that Tweets and social media posts that he had put online and his spouse had put online had come to the authorities attentions, and that they were now threatening him and his spouse. He was warned not to come back to Egypt.
[13] He considered whether or not to file a claim in the United States, decided not to, that it would not be prudent, and instead entered Canada with his family, crossing an illegal border crossing on XXXX XXXX of 2018, and then filed a claim upon arrival here in Canada.
[14] The claimant further indicates that one of his children XXXX was born in the United States on a trip that his spouse had taken there. His … two of his other children, one was born in Saudi Arabia, and the other in the United Arab Emirates. So, specifically, XXXX was born in Saudi Arabia and XXXX was Born in the United Arab Emirates.
[15] The claimants indicate that they fear returning to Egypt and that their lives would be at risk there due to their anti-government political activities. Accordingly, they seek protection here in Canada.
[16] The Determination:
[17] After assessing all of the evidence before me, sir and Madam, I determine that you have established your evidence, on a balance of probabilities.
[18] I find that you have established to the panel’s satisfaction your personal identities, your antigovernment political identity and activities. You’ve also established the credibility of your allegations. You’ve given me reasonable explanations with respect to the issues of failure to claim in the United States and re-availment.
[19] Moreover, I find that you have established the well-foundedness of your fear and that State protection and an internal flight alternative do not exist for you.
[20] I further find that you have established the countries of reference as Egypt only for yourselves and also, in particular, for XXXX and XXXX who were born in the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
[21] I’m going to turn to my analysis now.
[22] First, in relation to your personal identities, I note that you did provide the passports, the Egyptian passports for all of your family members. I note that for XXXX you provided the US passport and I will turn to that in her decision.
[23] Based on these documents, I find that you have established your personal identities, on a balance of probabilities, as required by Section 106 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and also Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division rules. Therefore, I am satisfied with respect to your personal identities, on a balance of probabilities.
[24] First, in relation to countries of reference, I would like to make a comment on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at this time.
[25] So, first I do want to acknowledge that I did assess those two countries in terms of the length of your residency in both of those countries. I note that the index of National Documentation Package for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the versions are March 2019, are before the panel at Exhibits 10 and 11.
[26] So, first in relation to … excuse me … the United Arab Emirates, I’m looking at Item 3.1 from that National Documentation Package and it’s indexed as ARE 103173.E. It indicates very clearly that the United Arab Emirates does not have a system to grant permanent residency rights such as a “green card” in the United States.
[27] It indicates that an article published by Reuters in the Cairo-based Mist News corroborate that UAE does not have a permanent residency status for foreigners.
It states;
According to the UAE Visa Officer, foreigners can reside in the UAE either on a work permit or residency permit. A work permit is granted to an applicant who has an employment contract with an employer, the residency permit allows dependents of such a worker to reside in the UAE. The Visa Officer stated that these permits are usually valid for two to three years depending on the type of job and are renewable provided the worker continues to be employed. Rights of residency are lost if a person is away from the UAE for more than six months, although he or she can reapply. The Visa Officer stated that birth in the United Arab Emirates does not entitle a child to permanent residency. If the child’s father is a UAE citizen then the child would also become a UAE citizen. If the child’s father is a foreigner, the child would require a UAE … a residency permit.
[28] Based on this objective documentary evidence, sir and Madam, I find that it is clearly established that you and the children, who were not born in the UAE, would not be entitled to any residency rights.
[29] I further find that your child XXXX who was born in the UAE is not entitled to citizenship rights, and the UAE is not a country of reference to him based on birth there. Given that you no longer have a work contract there, you have no rights to residency there. I see no perspective status for him in the future in that country.
[30] Also, further in regard to the UAE and also Saudi Arabia, I note that Item 3.5 from NDP for Saudi Arabia which is also indexed as Item 3.2 in the UAE NDP, this is Item Number ZZZ 104924.E dated August 13th of 2014, it speaks to the situation in Saudi Arabia and the employment visa system there which is very similar in nature and effect as that in the United Arab Emirates.
[31] I note that Item 3.1 SAU 105183.7 which is dated May 19th of 2015, speaks to those born in Saudi Arabia who are the children of noncitizens of Saudi Arabia. It goes on to describe the rights to education, that there are no rights to education after the age of 18; that the rights are not the same as those of a citizen. Non citizens are not allowed entry into the country after the lapse of the re-entry period visa.
[32] There is reference to children being permitted to return on a visa, however, it does state that an officer can deny the re-entry for children born in Saudi … born in Saudi who are born to non-citizens of that country. It further states that there is no codified rule of law in the country with respect to visa issuance on re-entry and that it depends on the parent’s political activities abroad.
[33] Accordingly, I find that there is no clear right to residence nor citizenship rights for XXXX in Saudi Arabia and therefore for both of those children who were born in Saudi Arabia and UAE respectively, I find that the country of reference is Egypt only.
[34] In terms of the anti-government political identity, sir, for yourself and your spouse and the credibility of your allegations, I saw no material inconsistencies or contradictions in your evidence. You were able to describe, sir, in your oral evidence today that as a political science student from university who has lived outside of Egypt for a number of years and then returned back in XXXX 2018, that you were taken aback by the situation in your country and that you felt compelled to speak out because you worried as a father about the future for your children in Egypt if … if you had to live there on an ongoing basis.
[35] I note, sir, that your statements are consistent with the documentary evidence that you’ve put forward, specifically, in Exhibit 12 the tweets that you spoke about and provided here today, and also they are consistent with the documents that you provided in Exhibit 5 from relatives back home and correspondence with him regarding the situation there.
[36] I find, sir, that you have established, and, Madam, you that you’ve established your anti government political activities, that you have been active on social media, on Facebook and Twitter. had the opportunity to look at the Facebook account that you have, sir, and I find that the evidence corroborates your statements. I find that you’ve established your evidence, on a balance, in this regard and in a credible fashion.
[37] In terms of your re-availment back to Egypt on several occasions, I note that you testified very clearly today that you became afraid to live in Egypt in September of 2018, while you were in the United States.
[38] I have no reason to doubt this testimony, sir, therefore I accepted as true, on a balance, and find therefore that your past returns to Egypt are not indicative of a lack of subject fear, as you did not feel at risk at that time. There was no imminent danger that you were facing. Therefore, I find your actions in that respect to be credible and that they do not detract from your subject fear.
[39] With respect to your failure to claim in United States, I asked you questions about this today, sir, and you explained that you spent a month in the United States between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of 2018, and that you have listened to news reports about the US government’s interactions with the Egyptian government, and your perception of the situation is that the relationship between the Trump administration and the Egyptian authorities is a positive one, and that you don’t feel comfortable with it.
[40] You also described today, sir, in your statements that you felt that there was an anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. You described incidents of mistreatment of the Muslim population, and you stated that you felt that the current political feeling is such that you would not be accepted in the United States and that you would be deported, and you were afraid for this, and as a result you started to explore means by which you could enter into Canada, and went online and found a way to come in, and you made your claim upon entry.
[41] I asked you very … very clearly to describe for me or to state for me whether or not you decided that it was better to take the risk of crossing into Canada illegally or filing a claim in the United States, and you stated that, from your perspective, you believed that taking the chance and coming to Canada was a better one.
[42] I find that there’s insufficient reason for me to doubt the sincerity of your statements, sir. I take that you were approaching the situation from your own understanding and your own perception of the situation.
[43] I note as well that you do have extended family in Canada, and that you were determined to come and reside with them in Windsor.
[44] You … one does take a serious risk in entering illegally because that too can lead to results that are negative ones. However, I don’t find that there is sufficient reason for me to find, from your actions with your understanding, your perception, that your actions were indicative of a lack of subjective fear.
[45] I don’t find that they are indicative of a lack of subject fear. I find, rather, that with your understanding in your personal circumstances that you acted in a reasonable fashion.
[46] In … with regards to the well-foundedness of your fear, I note, sir, that in the documentary evidence before me at Item at Exhibit 3, the index of National Documentation Package for Egypt, the version is September 30th of 2019, that there are a number of items. For example, Item 2.1 the US Department of State report for Egypt 2018, Item 4.2 the Civic Freedom Monitor for Egypt which is dated 17th of July 2019. Also, Item 4.5 which is indexed as EGY 105804.E June 12th of 2017 which speaks to the treatment of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including suspected members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
[47] All of these documents, sir, speak to a crackdown on freedom of expression. There’s also a crackdown by the government on those who are perceived to be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. In particular, for example, at Item 2.1 there are a number of human rights issues that are highlighted. One of which is restriction on political participation and freedom of expression, including on the Internet.
[48] Under the section on freedom of expression it states that;
Citizens express their views on a wide range of political and social topics. Nonetheless, the government investigated and prosecuted critics for alleged incitement of violence, insults to religion, insults to public figures and institutions such as the judiciary and the military, or violation of public morals. Individuals also faced societal and official harassment for speech views as sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as using a hand gesture showing four fingers, a reference to the 2013 security operation to disburse the sit-in at Rabaa al-Adawiya Square.
The law provides for a broad definition of terrorism to include any act harming national unity or social peace. The president stated that lying is a form of terrorism. Human rights observers expressed concern that authorities could use the ambiguous definition to stifle nonviolent speech and nonviolent opposition activity.
[49] On May 11th, authorities arrested XXXX XXXX on charges of abusing a means of communication and publishing a video containing false news after she uploaded a video to her personal Facebook account in which she described her experiences with sexual harassment in the country.
[50] It also then goes to talk about press and media freedom.
[51] I find, after reviewing the objective documentary evidence in addition to some of the articles that have been put forward by counsel such as in Exhibit 6, the article from the Washington Post entitled Egypt Jails American Traveller saying she criticized the government on Facebook which is dated August 8th.
[52] The … there is a great deal of documentation before me which corroborates your fears and provides an objective well-foundedness to the fear that you are experiencing. I therefore find, on a balance, that you have established the well-foundedness of your fear.
[53] With respect to State protection and an internal flight alternative, given that it is the authorities themselves you fear who would be the agents of persecution and given the documentary evidence that I’ve just cited, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of State protection and demonstrated that operationally adequate State protection would not be forthcoming to you in your circumstances, as it is the State themselves who are the persecutors.
[54] In terms of an internal flight alternative, as it is again the State themselves who are the agents of persecution, there would no … there would not be a reasonable alternative location for you to live in safely as the same risk would be present for you throughout the country. Therefore, I find that the availability of a viable internal flight alternative is not present and would fail on the first prong of the test.
[55] In conclusion I determine that the five of you XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXare all Convention refugees. I determine that for the adult claimants. For you it is your anti-government political opinion and for those minor claimants their membership in a particular social group.
[56] You have met the requirements of Section 96 of the IRPA. I therefore accept your claims.
[57] Now, in relation to the final claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, the file number for her is TBS- 25488, I note that from the documentary evidence in Exhibit 1 the copy of her passport that is before me that she is a US citizen. Therefore, her personal identity is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on her passport.
[58] At the outset of the hearing, sir, I did ask your counsel whether there were any allegations being put forward with respect to the United States or any submissions that he had to offer. He clearly stated that there are not. When I asked you, sir, you did point to your fear that if you were in the United States with your minor daughter XXXX, that you could potentially be separated as you had heard had occurred with migrants who were coming from Mexico.
[59] I … I note that this is a fear that you carry, sir, but for her independently I find that you have not put forward any allegations of risk that would meet the requirements of either Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or Section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[60] I find that the United States is a country that has a State protection mechanism that is functioning. It is a democratic country, and overall, sir, I find that there are no grounds for the granting of refugee protection under either Section 96 or 97(1).
[61] Accordingly, I find that for her as a citizen of the United States that she has not made out a claim on either of those grounds. Accordingly, I therefore do refuse her petition for refugee status and find that she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, and those are my reasons for her.
[62] Thank you both. Thank you, counsel, and, Mr. Interpreter.
[63] COUNSEL: Thank you, Madam.
[64] MEMBER: Thank you. We’re concluded.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-