Citation: 2020 RLLR 187
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 20, 2020
Panel: Megan Kammerer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Thaer Abuelhaija
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB9-01049
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003794-003802
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”) as a citizen of Egypt who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).1
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant is an Egyptian citizen who lived in Saudi Arabia from 2002 to 2018. He alleges that when he returned to Egypt he was arrested and assaulted by members of the police force, who told him that he had to pay them XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds or they would fabricate a file on him which demonstrates that he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood.
[3] The claimant is worried that he will be killed if he returns to Egypt.
DETERMINATION
[4] I find that the claimant is a protected person pursuant to section 97(1) of the Act.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] I find that the identity of the claimant as a national of Egypt has been established by his testimony and the supporting documentation filed, including his passport.2
Credibility
[6] When a claimant swears to the truth of his allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true, unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, I have found no reason to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness with respect to the allegations he has made about being detained and beaten by the police when they attempted to extort him. His testimony on this point was straightforward and consistent with his Basis of Claim form and narrative. I accept these allegations as recounted by the claimant during his testimony as true.
[7] I do note that the claimant has provided several documents to corroborate his allegations, including short affidavits written by his mother, his brother, and an individual who says he witnessed the claimant being taken by the Egyptian police to an unknown destination.3 I note that these witness statements are very short, vague, and undated. I therefore attach very little weight to them. The claimant has also provided a police report which indicates only that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 his brother reported their mother’s personal supply card had been lost but does not otherwise corroborate his allegation that his mother was beaten and robbed by state authorities who were searching for him.4 Again, I attach little weight to this police report. Despite the low probative value of these corroborating documents, I do not find that they detract from the credibility of the claimant with respect to the allegations he has made about the police beating and trying to extort him.
[8] I do have some doubts about the veracity of the claimant’s allegations with respect to his political opinion, which was raised as an issue by his counsel who asked him a series of leading questions about his political involvement and whether he supports the current regime in Egypt. These allegations contradict many of the statements made in the claimant’s narrative, in which he stated that he is “not a member of the Muslims Brotherhood or any other groups,” that he has “nothing to do with politics,” that he “personally was neither with nor against president Morsi, and never belonged to any political groups,” and that he is a “peaceful person who has never been a member of any political group, and never had any political views.” Although I do acknowledge that the claimant wrote in his narrative that he has “always been against injustice, oppression, and poverty” and that he participated in demonstrations against the regime of Husni Mubarak in 2010, I find that his statements about his political opinion during the hearing directly contradicted many of the statements made in his narrative and that his allegations with respect to being vulnerable to persecution due to his political opinion are not credible.
Nexus
[9] I find that the claimant’s fear of state authorities in Egypt is not tied to a Convention ground. Rather, the claimant fears state authorities who tried to extort him due to the perception that he is wealthy and lived abroad. As such, I do not find that there is a nexus between the claimant’s allegations and any of the refugee Convention grounds and I have assessed this claim under section 97(1) of the Act only.
[10] Although counsel argued on behalf of the claimant that there is a nexus to political opinion, the claimant clearly stated in the narrative attached to his Basis of Claim form that he “has never been a member of any political group” and has “never had any political views.” He also stated that when he was arrested by the police, they told him “we know that you have nothing to do with any political parties, and that you are not a member of the group of Muslim Brotherhood, and that you don’t belong to the Party of Light and justice, like your cousin.” I thus find that there is insufficient evidence to establish a nexus to political opinion in this case.
Risk of Harm
[11] To establish his status as a person in need of protection in Egypt, the claimant must show that he would be subjected personally on a balance of probabilities to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, if he returned to Egypt. The claimant has submitted that he is being targeted by state authorities who are trying to extort him.
[12] The claimant testified that he moved back to Egypt from Saudi Arabia in XXXX 2018. In approximately XXXX 2018, the claimant visited his cousin, who had been accused of being a member of opposition political parties and who had recently been released after having been detained by state authorities for a year and a half. The claimant was on his way home when he was stopped by police officers who grabbed him and asked him why he had been visiting his cousin. They asked to see his identification and noted that he had managed a restaurant in Saudi Arabia. One of the individuals took a picture of his identification card. The altercation lasted for approximately two hours, following which the claimant was released and told not to visit his cousin again.
[13] In approximately XXXX 2018, the claimant testified that he was sitting at home when he was apprehended by individuals in a police patrol car and taken to The Greater Mahalah’s third police station. He testified that this police station is heavily guarded and has a reputation for being where prisoners are tortured. The claimant testified that he was blindfolded, handcuffed, and made to take off his clothes. He was beaten, insulted, and had cold water thrown over him. At one point, both his feet were tied together and he was hung from the ceiling. Throughout this ordeal, the claimant heard his captors saying “this guy is recommended, this is the guy of Saudi Arabia.”
[14] When the claimant was told to put his clothes back on, he was told that because he possessed an iPhone he would be expected to pay. He was transferred to a different room and recognized one of the individuals who had taken a photograph of his identification card in XXXX. He was told: “we know that you have nothing to do with any political parties, and that you are not a member of the group of Muslim Brotherhood, and that you don’t belong to the Party of Light and justice, like your cousin” but that if he did not pay XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds to the police then they would manufacture a full file about him which indicates that he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood and he would be punished accordingly. The authorities told the claimant that because he has been living in Saudi Arabia for five years they know he has money.
[15] The claimant negotiated with his captors and agreed to pay them XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds. He agreed to provide them with the first XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds the following morning and indicated that he would be able to make another payment in XXXX 2019.
[16] The following morning, the claimant transferred the first XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds as agreed. He finalized plans to travel to Canada and departed from Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 prior to the payment of the second installment.
[17] The claimant testified that in XXXX 2019, after the second instalment was due, individuals identifying themselves as government officials went to his mother’s home to ask about his whereabouts. They searched her house, stole her identification documents and valuables, and hit her on the head. The claimant explained that his brother took their mother to the police station to report the incident and was told that if he proceeded further with the claim they would “eradicate” him from “the face of the earth.”
[18] The claimant testified that following this incident he has minimized contact with his mother, so as not to endanger her. He worries that phone calls are being monitored. He has asked his mother indirectly if any individuals are still looking for him and believes that they are.
[19] The objective evidence is consistent with the claimant’s allegations and indicates that incidents of arbitrary arrest and detention are “frequent.” In 2018, local activists and rights groups have stated that “hundreds” of arrests did not comply with due process laws. A report issued on December 10, 2018 by the Arabic Network for Human Right Information indicates that the police have gone so far as to refuse to release defendants that the court has ordered must be released. There is also evidence that civilians may be beaten and/or tortured while in detention, as well as reports of suspects being killed in unclear circumstances following their arrest. In 2018, for example, press reports indicated that Abdel Halim Mohamed El-Nahas died following a five-hour interrogation in Tora Prison. In June of that same year, authorities killed 10 persons and arrested two in raids conducted across the country, alleging that those who were killed or arrested were involved in an opposition movement.5 The Egyptian Coordination for Rights and Freedoms (ECRF) has identified 30 people who died from torture while being held in police stations and other Interior Ministry detention sites between August 2013 and December 2015. In 2016, the ECRF reported that its lawyers received 830 torture complaints and that a further 14 people had died from torture in custody.6
[20] Based on the totality of the evidence before me, including the claimant’s testimony and the objective evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant would face a forward-facing risk to his life from state authorities in Egypt. The principal claimant was detained and beaten on two occasions by state authorities who were seeking to extort him. He has now left the country with an outstanding debt to these officers. These state authorities continued to target the claimant’s mother after he left the country.
[21] The next question for me to consider under a section 97 claim is whether, in the context of the allegations, the claimant has provided sufficient evidence of his specific circumstances to establish that his risk is distinct from that of the general population.
[22] Pursuant to section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, claimants are not entitled to protection under the Act if the risk they face to their lives of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, in Egypt, is a risk that is generally faced by others in or from Egypt. The claimant must establish that he would face a risk different from those risks faced by the general population there.
[23] Consideration of a claim under section 97(1)(b) requires an individualized inquiry on the evidence, in the context of a present or perspective risk for the claimant, to determine if the risk personally faced by the claimant is also faced by others, generally, in Egypt. In this case, the claimant has been targeted, threatened, and subjected to violence by state authorities. This escalated from an encounter on the street, to the claimant’s arrest, and finally to physical assault. This is a specific and personalized risk. I find that these circumstances change the nature of the claimant’s risk to a non-generalized risk that is particular to this particular claimant. In my view, the claimant has established the objective basis of his claims, and has also established that the risk he faces is one that he personally faces and that is not faced generally by the population of Egypt.
State Protection
[24] Given that the state is the agent of harm in this case, I find that the state would not be willing or able to provide protection to the claimant. I find that the state agents who targeted the claimant are not merely rogue officers. The objective evidence indicates that Egyptian state authorities engage in widespread arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture against perceived dissidents and that the way they treated the claimant is part of a larger pattern of abuse perpetrated against civilians.7
[25] I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[26] The test for a viable Internal Flight Alternative is two pronged. The Board must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the claimants being persecuted, or on a balance of probabilities subjected personally to a section 97(1) risk of harm in the IFA location, and conditions there must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimants, for them to seek refuge there.
[27] In this case, I find that the state authorities who have demonstrated an interest in the claimant would likely be able to find the claimant anywhere in the country. The evidence in this case indicates that state authorities continue to be motivated to locate the claimant, as they tracked him down, arrested, and beat him while he was in Egypt, and continue to attempt to search for him at his mother’s house now that he has left the country.
[28] I find that state authorities were initially motivated to look for the claimant due to the perception that he has financial resources because he spent a significant amount of time out of the country, and that he became a target once he was drawn to their attention following his visit to his cousin’s house. I further find that following the claimant’s disappearance from Egypt this motivation would have increased due to the perception that he did not abide by the “deal” he made with authorities when he was detained.
[29] State authorities would certainly have the means to locate the claimant throughout the country, as the government maintains effective control across Egypt.
[30] As such, I find on a balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the claimant would face a risk to his life throughout the country. In my view, there is no viable IFA available to the claimant.
CONCLUSION
[31] For the foregoing reasons, I find that the claimant is a person in need of protection in Egypt under section 97 of the Act and accept his claim.
(signed) Megan Kammerer
March 20, 2020
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
2 Exhibit 1.
3 Exhibit 4.
4 Exhibit 5.
5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, September 30, 2019, Item 2.1.
6 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 10.1.
7 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 10.1.