Citation: 2020 RLLR 62
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 5, 2020
Panel: Isis Marianne van Loon
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Thaer Abuelhaija
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB9-06930
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000011-000019
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] [XXX] (the “claimant”) seeks refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]
Possible Exclusion
[2] The Minister was notified on August 5, 2020 of a possible Article 1F exclusion issue, based on the claimant’s disclosure of Egyptian court documents listing him as a terrorist. The Minister declined to intervene. The claimant could be excluded under either Article 1F(a) or Article 1F(c) if he committed crimes of terrorism or was complicit in crimes of terrorism.
[3] The claimant provided an Egyptian government court decree and orders, issued December 10, 2017 and April 26, 2018, in which the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is listed as a terrorist organization and he is listed, among many other people, by name as a terrorist (Exhibit 4). While there are many allegations made by the government against the people named on this list, including references to terrorist schemes, there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the court on whatever evidence it may have collected.
[4] I considered the claimants credibility, discussed later in my analysis, and found him to be a credible witness. He denied any involvement with the MB or any other terrorist organization. He testified that “I wasn’t a member of any of the MB nor any other organization, however, I was happy with the change” and explained that he supported people who he believed were good candidates. The claimant testified that he did not contribute financially either to the revolution or to the MB.
[5] The claimant also stated that anybody who supported the revolution was considered a terrorist by the current government. Objective country documentary evidence supports his statement. According to National Documentation Package (NDP) 2.7[2] the government has repressed a “wide range of Egyptians whose complicity in terrorist activities is highly questionable”. The state’s war on terror has “largely been a pretext to legitimize the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood’s former hold on the reins of government and to solidify the position of the post-coup leadership by purging real and imagined followers of the organization”.
[6] There is no evidence before me that the claimant ever committed crimes of terrorism, that he was a member of the MB or any other alleged terrorist organization, or that he was complicit in any alleged crimes of terrorism. Therefore, I am satisfied that the issue of exclusion under either 1F(a) or 1F(c) does not apply in this case.
ALLEGATIONS
[7] The claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim Form and in his testimony. The following is a brief summary;
[8] The claimant fears persecution by the Egyptian government on the basis of his real and imputed political opinion opposing the current regime.
DETERMINATION
[9] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely, real and imputed political opinion.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[10] I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt is established by his testimony and supporting documentation filed including a certified true copy of his passport in Exhibit 1.
Credibility
[11] The presumption before me is that the claimant’s testimony is true; however; this can be rebutted in appropriate circumstances, such as inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions and undetailed testimony.
[12] The claimant provided detailed testimony with respect to his background, the origins of his political opinion and support for civilian as opposed to military governments dating to the revolution of 1952, when he was seven years old. He dearly and consistently stated that he believes in civilian run, democratic governments that support human rights.
[13] There were no relevant inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me. He did not appear to embellish his description of events and actions, even when it might have appeared favourable to his claim. I found the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore believe what he alleged in support of his claim.
Nexus (96)/grounds (97(1))
[14] I find that the persecution the claimant faces has a nexus to one of the five convention grounds, that of political opinion, both real and imputed, and therefore this claim will be assessed under S 96.
Weil founded fear
[15] In order to be considered a Convention Refugee a claimant must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution which includes both a subjective fear and an objective basis for that fear.
[16] Based on the claimant’s testimony and supporting documents and the country condition documents I find that that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons:
Subjective Fear
[17] The claimant is an [XXX], and he founded his [XXX] in his hometown in 1986. He supported the 2011 revolution in Egypt, which he stated arose when people opposed police brutality, corruption, and the lack of freedom and human rights.
[18] The claimant described his support for civilian rule, and the hope that he had after the 2011 revolution and subsequent democratic election in June of 2012 that installed Dr. Morsi as
leader. Although he was not an activist, as the [XXX] of a [XXX] in his hometown, he was a
respected [XXX] who shared his opinion freely with others.
[19] The claimant said that the former government continued to interfere with the Morsi government and in June of 2013 it staged a military coup. Under the new regime anyone suspected of supporting the 2011 revolution and elections of 2012 came under scrutiny. The claimant’s [XXX] was targeted and forcibly taken over by the new regime in 2014. On [XXX] 2015, fearing for his safety and hoping that over time things would calm down so that he could return, he left Egypt to live with various family members around the world.
[20] Tired, and running out of funds he returned to Egypt after [XXX] months on [XXX], 2017. However, on [XXX], 2017 he learned that he was being accused of being a terrorist in a court decree. He left Egypt the next day and never returned.
[21] The claimant stayed with various family members on visitor’s visas in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the USA. He was living with his son in the USA in 2019 when he attempted to renew his Egyptian passport which was due to expire in [XXX] 2020. He paid the fee and submitted his application and waited four months only to be informed by Egyptian authorities that his passport would not be renewed. Fearing he was soon to be abroad with an expired passport and that his life was in danger if he was returned to Egypt, he decided to claim asylum. Having read President Trump’s tweets in support of Al Sisi, he feared claiming asylum in the USA. He had a daughter in Canada, and after discussion with his family he crossed into Canada in [XXX] of 2019 to claim asylum.
[22] I find that through his actions, his testimony, and in light of the country condition documents discussed below, the claimant has adduced sufficient credible evidence to establish that he has a subjective fear of persecution in Egypt
Objective Basis
[23] The US Department of State reports that there are significant human rights issues in Egypt including unlawful or arbitrary killings, forced disappearances, torture, harsh and life threatening prison conditions, political prisoners, the worst forms of restrictions on free expression, as well as substantial inference with peaceful assembly and freedom of association, among other human rights issues. Furthermore, the government’s lack of support for the investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses contributed to a culture of impunity.[3]
[24] The Egyptian government targets those they perceive as opponents. Since the overthrow of Morsi, hundreds of MB members and supporters have been put on trial and given harsh sentences. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly criticized the lack of fair trials. As of 2016, as many as 40,000 people were detained for political reasons, most of them for real or suspected links to the MB.[4]
[25] The country documents show that this mistreatment of real as well as perceived opposition supporters has continued. NDP 2.2 states that the authorities resorted to a range of repressive measures against protesters and perceived dissidents, including enforced disappearance, mass arrests, torture and other ill-treatment, excessive use of force and severe probation measures, particularly after protests against the President on 20 September [2019]. Constitutional amendments expanded the role of military courts in prosecuting civilians and undermined the independence of the judiciary.[5]
[26] The mistreatment that both real and perceived opponents to the regime risk rises, in my opinion, to the level of persecution.
[27] I am satisfied that the claimant, who clearly and repeatedly expressed his support for democracy and human rights and condemned the military coup, holds a genuine political opinion against the current regime. I am satisfied that the authorities perceive him as having a political opinion in opposition to them, and that this is reflected in their inclusion of the claimant on a list of terrorists in the court documents in Exhibit 4.
[28] Based on all of the evidence before me, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution by the state if he were to return to Egypt.
State Protection
[29] Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states must be presumed capable of protecting their citizens.
[30] In this case, the agent of persecution is the state, and the persecution the claimant would face if returned to Egypt is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to the claimant.
Internal flight alternative (IFA)
[31] Internal flight alternative arises when a claimant, who otherwise meets all the elements of the definition of a Convention refugee in his or her home area of the country, nevertheless is not a Convention refugee person in need of protection because the person can live safely elsewhere in that country.
[32] The test for a viable IFA is two-pronged:
[33] The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that
- The claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution (section 96) or be subjected personally to a danger of torture, or a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (section 97) in the part of the country to which the panel finds an IFA exists, and
- Conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him or her to seek refuge there.[6]
First prong
[34] The state of Egypt is the agent of harm, and it is in control of all its territories. Therefore, I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire country. I find there is no IFA for the claimant in Egypt
CONCLUSION
[35] I find that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon his return to Egypt due to his real and imputed political opinion.
[36] Based on the totality of the evidence, I conclude that the claimant is a convention refugee. Accordingly, I accept his claim.
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 October 2020, tab 2.7: Egypt’s failing “War on Terror”.
Heinrich-Boll-Stiftung. Helena Burgrova. February 2017.
[3] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 October 2020, tab 2.1: Egypt. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020.
[4] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 October 2020, tab 4.5: Treatment of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including leaders, returnee members and suspected members, by authorities, following the removal of President Mohamed Morsi (2014-May 2017). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 12 June 2017. EGY105804.E.
[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 October 2020, tab 2.2: Egypt. Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Review of 2019. Amnesty International. 18 February 2020. MDE 01/1357/2020.
[6] Rasaratnam v. Canada (MEI), [1992] I FC 706 (CA)