Citation: 2020 RLLR 182
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 21, 2020
Panel: Randa Mekhael
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-33493
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-33535, TB9-33715
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001021-001024
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their son XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claim to be citizens of Egypt, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] These claims have been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.
[3] In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claimants allege that they are a devout Coptic Christian family of Egyptian nationality who describe a number of incidents of intimidation, harassment, and assault at the hands of Muslim extremists as a result of their faith. They fear persecution at the hands of Muslim extremists as a result of their religious identity as Coptic Christians and have thus filed claims for refugee protection.
DETERMINATION
[5] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees as they have established a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Egypt based on the grounds in section 96.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] I find that their respective identities as nationals of Egypt are established by the documents provided: their passports,i and birth certificates.ii
[7] They have also established their identity as Coptic Christians by providing birth certificates, baptism certificates, national identity cards, marriage certificate and supporting letters from the Coptic Orthodox Churches in Egypt and Canada.iii
Nexus
[8] I find that the claimants have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of religion.
Credibility
[9] Based on the documents in the file, there no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above, namely that the claimants are of the Coptic Christian faith. After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.
Objective basis of future risk
[l0] The claimants’ subjective fear of persecution is objectively well founded. Information in the National Documentation Package (NDP) confirms that abuse of Coptic Christians was increasing even before the fall of the Mubarak regime. Christian properties, including homes, businesses, and churches, have been destroyed and Christians have been the primary targets of violent sectarian attacks. Christians have been arrested and detained; they have also faced harassment, rape, mental and physical abuse and pressure to convert to Islam; police officers have been involved in the persecution of Christians. The state has not adequately protected Christians, and has failed to prosecute perpetrators.iv
State protection
[11] I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. The objective evidence indicates that the Egyptian authorities not only fail to protect Coptic Christians, but they themselves engage in violence against them, and perpetrators of attacks against Christians commit abuses in a climate of impunity.v I find that based on the claimants’ evidence when considered in conjunction with the objective evidence, is a clear and convincing rebuttal of the presumption of state protection.
Internal flight alternative
[12] I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt.
The evidence does not suggest that the religiously-motivated violence is restricted to a particular area of Egypt, or that individuals in the claimant’s situation could find safety elsewhere.vi As such, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative in Egypt for this claim.
CONCLUSION
[13] Having considered the evidence, I find there is a serious possibility that the claimants would be persecuted upon return to Egypt because of their Coptic Christian identities. I conclude that the claimants are Convention refugees. Accordingly, I accept their claims.
(signed) R. Mekhael
February 21, 2020
i Exhibit 1— Package of information from the referring Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) / Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
ii Exhibit 5 – Personal Documents
iii Ibid.
iv Exhibit 3 – National Documentation Package, Egypt, (CND – Egypt) 29 March 2019, tab 12.8: Response to information request EGY105805. E., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 20 June 2017; Tab 12.1: Egypt. International Religious Freedom Report.for 2017, United States, Department of State, 28 May 2018.
v Supra note 4, tab 12.8.
vi Supra note 4, tab 12.5: Egypt’s Christians Flee ISIS Violence: Displaced Call Security Officials’ Response ‘Apathetic’, Human Rights Watch, Joe Stork, 13 March 2017.