Citation: 2020 RLLR 186
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 27, 2020
Panel: Roman Kotovych
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A Kaminker
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-15854
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-13164, TB9-13232
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003305-003307
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: I’ve heard your testimony. I’ve weighed your evidence. I’m going to give you an oral decision. You’re gonna get a transcript of these reasons at the address. There may be some small errors, I don’t see them before they get sent out.
[2] Okay, I’ll tell you at the outset cause the reasons will take a few minutes to piece together that I’m accepting the claims today. So, I’m saying yes to all three of you.
[3] CLAIMANT: Thank you.
[4] MEMBER: You’re welcome.
[5] And these are my reasons for decision. Apologies if I mispronounce your names. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the claimants, seek refugee protection under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[6] INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Your Honor. Should I translate simultaneous.
[7] MEMBER: If you can, that would be great.
[8] INTERPRETER: Yes, yes I can.
[9] MEMBER: Thank you. So, then she’ll join you in the back and explain as we’re going along. Okay.
[10] The claimants allegations are summarized in their Basis of Claim forms. In summary, they’re alleged to be an Egyptian father, mother and adult son also with Sudanese citizenship seeking protection from persecution on the basis of their Christian Evangelical faith in both countries.
[11] I find that you are Convention refugees for the following reasons.
[12] First, on the issue of identity. I find that you’ve established your personal identities and citizenships. I find you’ve also established your religious identities as Christians. I was presented with copies of Egyptian and Sudanese passports for all three of you, as well as original birth certificates, marriage certificate and church documents. I find on a balance of probabilities this establishes your identities.
[13] There is a Nexus of religion under Section 96 in this case. Ma’am, you’ve also raised a, an added gender element based on your fear of living as a woman and a Christian in these countries, which I’ve also considered.
[14] I find you’ve adequately established on a balance of probabilities your risk of harm returning or risk of persecution returning to both Egypt and Sudan. I found the testimonies to be credible today. You testified as to your backgrounds in these countries, your religious identities, your particular experiences. And why you left when you did.
[15] I did have some questions about failure to claim in, on several opportunities, as well as why you delayed leaving over so many years. I found the explanations reasonable in the circumstances. While you Sir, did testify as to why you didn’t take advantage of claiming in Europe and while there still is an element there of failure to claim, the explanation was reasonable in the entirety of the circumstances. It’s outweighed by and your explanation is bolstered by the objective evidence. And that in and of itself is insufficient to outweigh everything that you’ve told me.
[16] I’ve also considered your explanations as to the escalating nature of the harm. And why you were willing to remain in these countries for the time that you did. You also testified as to why you fear having a forward looking harm. And while there have been political changes in these countries, the best evidence that I have as to the current situation is the country conditions in the NDP, the country conditions provided by counsel and your own testimony as to the situation in both of these countries.
[17] And based on that evidence and with nothing else compelling or credible before me to say that the circumstances have changed sufficiently, that is the evidence that I am relying on. And I find that evidence objectively justifiable and credible.
[18] So, having considered all the evidence including your testimonies, I find that you’ve established a serious possibility of harm returning to either country on the basis of your Christian faith.
[19] On the issues of internal flight alternative and state protection, I find that these do not apply in the circumstances as it is the State that you fear in both cases. As well, while there’s a societal element but also the State in both countries, it would be unreasonable for you to approach the State for protection.
[20] I also note that given some of the continued impunity against Christians in these countries, that that further points to the un-, inability or unwillingness of the State to protect Christians. Or in any event, insufficiently to protect your open practice in these countries.
[21] On the issue of internal flight alternative, I don’t have an alternative to point to where you would not face a serious possibility of harm. You testified as to why you feel you would not be able to relocate within these countries. And I find sufficient evidence from what I have before me that the risk would continue throughout both of these countries. As such, the IFA test fails on the first prong. And I find no internal flight alternative for you. For all these reasons, I find that you would face a serious possibility of harm in both of your countries of reference.
[22] For this reason, I find all three of you to be Convention refugees under the IRPA. And I therefore accept your claims.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-