Tag: Political Opinion

Citation: 2019 RLLR 215
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2019
Panel: A. Rico
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Rebeka Lauks
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-27274
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-27297, TB8-27337
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 000810-000814

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the reasons for decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim protection filed by XXXX XXXX first name is spelled, XXXXX. last name is spelled, XXXX, XXXX first name is spelled, XXXX last name is spelled, XXXX and· first name is spelled, XXXX middle name is spelled XXXX last name is spelled XXXX, under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim Forms found at Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. In short, the claimants allege a fear of persecution at the hands of the Turkish Government because the principal claimant’s … because of the principal claimant’s real or perceived political opinion as a diplomat and person affiliated to the Hizmet/Gulen movement. Which led to his discharge under emergency decree from public service on allegations of terrorism.

[3]       For the following reasons I find that the adult claimants are Convention refugees. However, I also find that the minor claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

[4]       I am satisfied that the claimant’s … I’m satisfied of the claimant’s identities based on their certified true copies of their passports and I am satisfied that the adult claimants are citizens of Turkey and that the girl minor claimant is a citizen of Turkey and the United States. Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 1.

[5]       I will assess the claim for the minor girl claimant against the United States first before assessing the adult claimant’s claim against Turkey.

[6]       The law states that if a claimant is a national of more than one country the claimant must show that he or she is a Convention refugee with respect to all such countries.

[7]       The girl minor claimant is a citizen of the United States of America as she was born in that country and has right of citizenship by virtue of her birth. She must show that she faces a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a danger of torture or a risk to her life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment throughout the United States of America.

[8]       The principal claimant alleges that he believes that the minor claimant is in danger as he believes that the US has made a secret deal with a high profile US citizen when that person was released from prison in Turkey. He believes that the secret deal is that the US will return Turkish citizens of interest to Turkey. The principal claimant forms this belief based on his past work as a diplomat.

[9]       I find the principal claimant’s testimony to be completely speculative. The principal claimant has no direct knowledge as negotiations for release of a high profile US citizen. He was not present for the negotiations. He’s basing this belief primarily from his own fear of persecution in Turkey.

[10]     I note that the claimant’s counsel advanced no evidence of persecution in the US for the girl minor claimant. I further note that the claimant’s counsel advanced no evidence of an objective basis or well-foundedness of the claim against the United States for the girl minor claimant.

[11]     I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant’s belief is not well-founded.

[12]     The US is a democratic country, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights. There is no objective or concrete evidence beside the principal claimant’s belief that the US would extradite a minor, age approximately nine, to Turkey nor that Turkey would expel the resources required to extradite said minor who has very tenuous links to the Gulen movement.

[13]     While I find that it would be a hardship for the girl minor claimant to return to the United States on her own without her parents, I find that this hardship does not constitute persecution or a need for protection.

[14]     Neither the claimants nor their counsel presented any persuasive objective evidence that the girl minor claimant faced any risk in the United States. As such, the girl minor claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. I must reject her claim for refugee protection.

[15]     I now tum to assess the claims made by the adult claimants. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their profile as persons who are or perceived to be members of the Hizmet/Gulen movement.

[16]     The claimants presented a wealth of documentation that the principal claimant … principal claimant is a … was a diplomat. That he applied to various courts to resolve the issue with the Turkish Government. That the Turkish Government’s belief in his involvement in the coup attempt is formed by his attendance at Hizmet affiliate education institutions and his previa work … previous work at the Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 9.

[17]     Despite my concerns regarding the adult claimant’s delay in claiming in the United States and their abandonment of their claim in the United States, the adult claimant’s have still established, on a balance of probabilities, a profile which the documentary evidence cited below indicates that persons with this profile are persecuted by the Turkish State. As such, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their profiles. The adult claimants have established their profiles as persons affiliated to the Hizmet/Gulen movement and that these profiles place them at a serious risk of persecution if returned to Turkey.

[18]     The persecution of persons with a similar profile of the adult claimants is objectively well­ founded.

[19]     The information in the National Documentation Package found at Exhibit 5 confirms that in July 2016 there was an attempted coup against the Turkish Government. The government blames various sections of the Turkish society who are perceived to be part of the Hizmet/Gulen movement for this attempted coup, including but not limited to, persons associated with the Hizmet/Gulen institutions, persons employed at or studied at Hizmet affiliated educational institutions, public servants, the judiciary, government officials, military personnel, bilok(p) users, etcetera. Evidence of which can be found, as I state earlier, at Exhibit 5 Items 1.7, 2.1, and 2.5.

[20]     Counsel also submitted documentary evidence to support that diplomats who have an affiliation to the Hizmet/Gulen movement are persecuted in Turkey.

[21]     The government considers these persons to be terrorists, as it considers the Hizmet/Gulen movement to be part of a terrorist organization.

[22]     Under the guise of the emergency decrees and anti-terrorism laws, the Turkish Government subjects these persons to various human right violations including but not limited to arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings.

[23]     Despite the public declaration of a repeal of the state of emergency, there is no persuasive evidence before me to indicate that there is a change in the treatment of persons who are or perceived to be part of the Hizmet/Gulen movement.

[24]     Therefore, based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations I find the adult claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey by reason of the principal claimant’s real or perceived political opinion.

[25]     As the agent of persecution is the Government of Turkey I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the adult claimants to seek protection of the Turkish Government.

[26]     I also find that the adult claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey, especially given the country documentation that indicates that the authorities operate similarly throughout Turkey. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to the adult claimants.

[27]     I conclude that adult claimants are Convention refugees and I therefore accept their claim. However, based on the analysis outlined above I find that the minor girl claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and I reject her claim for refugee protection.

[28]     We can pull the mics forward again.

[29]     This concludes today’s hearing. We will be going off the record.

—REASONSCONCLUDED–

Citation: 2019 RLLR 175
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 20, 2019
Panel: Keith Brennenstuhl
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ilwad Jama
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-20808
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-20869, TB7-20889, TB7-20890, TB7-20920
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000588-000595

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]     These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “PC”), his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their three children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 13), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 17) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 19), 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]     The PC was appointed the designated representative for his minor children.

[3]     The Minister intervened in the present case, raising the potential application of Article 1E of the Convention. The Minister submitted that the claimants were permanent residents of Italy and that the claimants were, therefore, excluded.

[4]     The application of Article 1E to this case was dealt with on a preliminary basis. I have determined below that Article 1E does not apply to the present case.

[5]     The claims have been decided without a hearing, according to the IRB’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

ARTICLE 1E

[6]     I will summarize the evidence material to the question of whether Article 1E is applicable in this instance. XXXX and XXXX claim to be Egyptian citizens who moved to Italy in 1996, and 1997, respectively, and lived in the country for over fifteen years. Their children were all born in Italy. XXXX and his family were granted permanent residence status in Italy in 2003, when they obtained “Carta di Soggiorno“.

[7]     XXXX and his family left Italy in 2012, to return to Egypt. Since XXXX and his family have not resided in Italy and have not resided in the EU, with the exception of XXXX who went there for a six-month visit.

Assessment of the Issue

[8]     Article 1E of the Refugee Convention reads:

This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of nationality in that country.

[9]     That article is reflected in section 98 of IRPA: “A person referred to in section E or F article 1 of the Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.”

[10]   In the Zeng decision, the Federal Court of Appeal set out the test to be applied in article 1E exclusions. The Court stated, “Considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status, substantially similar to that of its nationals, in the third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is excluded.”¹

[11]   In the present case, the PC indicated that he and his family were granted permanent residence status in Italy in 2003, when they obtained Carta di Soggioro”. I accept the PC’s testimony that he and his family enjoyed rights in Italy as permanent residents that were substantially similar to those enjoyed by Italian nationals. Specifically, the PC testified that his children were able to go to school, that his family members had access to health care and other social services, the adults were able to seek and obtain employment, and the family had, demonstrably, been able to travel freely in and out of Italy, including to Egypt. These hallmarks of status substantially similar to nationals are directly in line with the four criteria outlined in the Federal Court’s decision of Shamlou,² namely, the right to return to the country of residence, the right to work freely without restrictions, the right to study and full access to social services in the country of residence.

[12]   While it is clear that the claimants have long resided in Italy, and actually held and enjoyed status there substantially similar to Italian nationals, the question is whether on the date of the hearing, the claimants still held this status.

[13]   According to the Response to Information Request³ a permanent resident of Italy will lose his status in the following cases:

• it has been acquired fraudulently;
• the state has ordered an expulsion measure against an applicant;
• the applicant no longer meets the requirements of the permit;
• the applicant has been absent from EU territory for 12 consecutive months;
• the applicant has acquired long-term resident status in another European Union member State”;
• the applicant has been absent from Italy for more than 6 years.

[14]   Counsel for the claimants provided a legal opinion by Sara Riboldi,⁴ a lawyer who is a Member of the Ontario Bar and a member of the Italian Bar of Milan in Italy, with offices in Toronto and Milan. She regularly advises Italian government institutions on matters involving Italy and Canada and, on a regular basis, advises individuals on citizenship and immigration issues in relation to Italian law. I found her opinion to be clear and persuasive.

[15]   It is clear from the evidence that the claimants have been absent from EU territory for more than 12 months. Ms. Riboldi writes:

As explained above, subsection 7 of Article 9 of Law 286/1998 referred to provides revocation of a long-term residence permit on the grounds of the holder leaving the EU for the period of 12 consecutive months. Specifically, the Italian version of Law 286/1998 states that the Permit “è revocato in caso di assenza dal territorio dell’Unione per un period di dodici mesi consecutive” translated as “is” revoked if the holder leaves the EU for the period of 12 consecutive months. Therefore by operation of law the long-term permit is revoked when any conditions listed under Subsection 7 of the Law 286/ 1998 is found. Some police websites erroneously mention that the long-term permit “can” be revoked if someone leaves EU for more than 1 year. Please note that this is not the tenor of the law, which states that a Permit “is” revoked if the person leaves the EU for more than one year.

[16]   Ms. Riboldi continues:

If XXXX and his family were to return to Italy and truthfully disclose that they left the country in 2012 and did not return by the end of 2013, the Italian immigration authorities will immediately conduct an investigation, which will result in a legal decision concerning whether they have forsaken their long-term permanent resident status there. NP When faced with the prospect of revocation, the holder of the permit can argue that the period of 12 consecutive months did not run in his/her case because he/she encountered exceptional circumstances that did not allow him or her to return to the EU within the prescribed time. The burden of proof is on the holder of the permit to show the “exceptional circumstances”. To reverse the revocation of a long-term residence permit, he would need to prove the existence of grave circumstances that would justify setting aside the revocation set by the law of the permit. The only exceptional circumstances considered in Italian case law on whether the 12 consecutive months did not run in a specific case are military reasons or very serious health issues. It is my understanding that neither of these justifications prevented XXXX and his family from returning to live in Italy. NP In sum, it is clear that: 1) XXXX and his family will not be issued a re-entry visa because they are no longer entitled to their Carta di Soggiorno; 2) because they cannot obtain valid documents they will be unable tore-enter Italy; 3) and because they have not been living in in Italy since 2012 and were absent from the EU for a period longer than 12 months, starting from 2012, it will be determined that they have lost their long-term permanent resident status.

[17]   Returning to Zeng, “Considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status, substantially similar to that of its nationals, in the third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is excluded.” In this particular case the answer is clearly no. In my view, the claimants do not have status “substantially similar to nationals of Italy”. They no longer have the right to work freely without restrictions, the right to study and the right to access to social services and most importantly they have no right to return.

[18]   I conclude that Article 1E does not apply to the present case.

THE CLAIMS

Allegations

[19]   The allegations are fully set out in the narrative of the PC’s BOC as expanded on in the narrative of his eldest son’s BOC. In short, the PC was not reluctant to continue to express his support for President Morsi who was democratically elected but forced from office by the army and replaced by President Sisi. He would discuss his views with friends and family and post his views on social media. His home was raided by Internal Security who searched his home, took his laptop and forcibly removed him while blind-folded to an unknown location where he was roped to a chair, accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and aggressively interrogated until the following day. Two months later, he was summoned to the police station. He learned through his lawyer that the police had started an investigation against him based on a business competitor’s accusation that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of Morsi. His lawyer advised him not to report to the police and leave the country.

Determination

[20]   For the following reasons, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.

Analysis

Identity

[21]   Certified true copies of the claimants’ current Egyptian passports were included in the referral. This is sufficient to establish the claimants’ personal identities as nationals of Egypt.

Nexus

[22]   I find that a nexus to section 96 has been established by reason of political opinion in the case of the PC, and membership in a particular social group, namely, family members of a political dissident, in the case of the PC’s wife and children.

Credibility

[23]   Regarding the credibility of the claimants, I have reviewed the claimants’ BOCs, the claimants’ intake forms, the personal documentation provided in support of the claim, as well as their country condition documentation. I have also reviewed country condition documentation contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018). The claimants’ evidence is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible, or contradicted by documentary evidence. Furthermore, the allegations are corroborated by personal documents that I do not have sufficient reason to discount, including a Notice to Appear from Sharqia police to the PC, and a copy of a police complaint against the PC accusing him of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Objective basis of future risk

[24]   Based on the credibility of the allegations and the documentary evidence, I find that claimants face a future risk of detention, physical abuse and torture at the hands of the Egyptian authorities owing to the PC’s support of Morsi and the perception that he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[25]   The documentary evidence⁵ before me on country conditions confirms that the government of Egypt severely represses and persecutes political opposition by means of arrest, long term detention, unfair mass trials, life sentencing and death sentencing, physical abuse, torture and disappearances. I am, therefore, satisfied that the claimants face a serious risk of serious human rights abuse by Egyptian security forces and the courts.

Nature of Harm

[26]   In my view, the harm the claimants face if they were to return to Egypt amounts to persecution.

State protection

[27]   As the agent of persecution is Egyptian governmental authorities, I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the Egyptian government in light of the claimants’ particular circumstances.

Internal flight alternative

[28]   On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt, given the objective evidence that the authorities operate similarly throughout the country. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to these claimants.

CONCLUSION

[29]   Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimants are Convention refugees. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

(signed)      KEITH BRENNENSTUHL

June 20, 2019

1  Zeng, Guanqiu v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-275-09), Noël, Layden-Stevenson, Stratas, May 10, 2010, 2010 FCA 118. Reported: Zeng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] 4 F.C.R. 3 (F.C.A.)

2  Shamlou, Pasha v. MCI (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4967-94), Teitelbaum, November 15, 1995.  Reported: Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 135 (F.C.T.D.).

3 Exhibit 15, National Documentation Package for Italy (May 31, 2018), Item 3.3.

4 Exhibit 16, Legal opinion of Sara Riboldi, dated September 19, 2018.

5 Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Tabs 1, 2 & 4; Exhibits 10-12, Claimants’ country conditions packages.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 174
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 23, 2019
Panel: C. Ruthven
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard P. Eisenberg
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-17225
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-17236, TB7-17256, TB7-17260, TB7-17261
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000536-000549

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]     These reasons and decision are in regards to the claims for protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (adult female claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (elder minor male claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (younger minor male claimant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor female claimant).

[2]     Each is claiming protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.¹ The panel heard the claims jointly, pursuant to Refugee Protection Division Rule 55.²

[3]     The principal claimant was the designated representative for all three minor claimants.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]     The claims of the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants are each against Egypt. The claim of the minor female claimant is against the United States of America.

[5]     The principal claimant’s full allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim Form and related narrative,³ including its amendments,⁴ and addendum.⁵ The adult female claimant and the three minor claimants each rely on the narrative of the principal claimant.

[6]     The principal claimant joined the Nour Alhag (Light of Right) Association during his studies at XXXX XXXX XXXX in Cairo. After graduating university in 1991, he continued to oppose the corruption and nepotism that existed under the former regime of Hosni Mubarak. The principal claimant was harassed by the security and intelligence services in Egypt, until he relocated to Saudi Arabia in 1993.

[7]     The adult female claimant also attended XXXX XXXX XXXX, where she was a women’s rights activist, especially concerning ending violence against women, ending early marriage, and ending Female Genital Mutilation practices. The adult female claimant was the victim of Female Genital Mutilation, and she fears that physical or psychological trauma might be inflicted on her daughter (the minor female claimant) in places with high Female Genital Mutilation prevalence rates, such as Egypt (including Aswan).

[8]     In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the principal claimant participated in the Kifaya (Enough) movement between 2004 and 2010. Upon a return to Egypt in 2007, he was subjected to harsh interrogation from security intelligence, based on his participation with Kifaya in Riyadh.

[9]     The adult claimants and the two minor male claimants returned to Egypt in XXXX 2011, where they participated in the Tahrir Square protests against Hosni Mubarak. The claimants returned Saudi Arabia the following month.

[10]   The principal claimant joined the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh, after the political party was founded in June 2011. During the election campaign, the claimant promoted the Freedom and Justice Party within the Egypt diaspora community. When President Mohamed Morsi was removed from office by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the adult claimants and the two minor male claimants returned to Egypt in XXXX 2013, to protest the removal of the democratically-elected president, in Cairo’s Rabaa Square.

[11]   The principal claimant was arrested and detained between July 7, 2013 and July 9, 2013. During his two-day detention, he was physically mistreated and accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (based on his presence in Rabaa Square). The claimants departed Egypt for Saudi Arabia on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013.

[12]   Between XXXX XXXX, 2016 and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, the principal claimant returned to Egypt on three occasions, in order to fight the appropriation of fifteen acres of his land, by the government of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The principal claimant eventually lost his appropriation appeal. The principal claimant was terminated from his Saudi Arabia employment in March 2017, a few weeks before he lost his land appropriation appeal in Egypt.

[13]   The adult claimants made arrangements to visit their elderly parents in Egypt, between XXXX XXXX, 2017 and XXXX XXXX, 2017. After the seven-day visit, the claimants travelled to Canada, and made a claim for protection in September 2017.

[14]   Based on the nature of the claim made by the minor female claimant (Female Genital Mutilation), the panel carefully considered the contents of Chairperson ‘s Guideline 4 – Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution,⁶ both during the hearing and while rendering the decision.

DETERMINATION

[15]   The panel finds that the principal claimant and the adult female claimant are both Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on their anti-government political opinion.

[16]   The panel finds that the elder minor male claimant and the younger minor male are each Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on their membership in a particular social group, namely family members of the adult claimants (who face a serious possibility of persecution in Egypt).

[17]   Despite the above, the panel finds that minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ANALYSIS FOR THE MINOR FEMALE CLAIMANT

Identity

[18]   The panel finds that the minor female claimant has established her identity as a national of the United States of America, based on a balance of probabilities. The minor female claimant presented a valid passport from the United States of America.⁷ The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document.

[19]   The Basis of Claim Form narrative of the principal claimant referenced the high prevalence rate of Female Genital Mutilation practices in Egypt.⁸

[20]   Despite this, the panel notes that there was no narrative mention of any alleged risks of harm to the minor female claimant in the United States of America (including Female Genital Mutilation).

[21]   At the hearing, the principal claimant testified that his daughter (the minor female claimant) does not face a risk of harm in the United States of America. Similarly, the adult female claimant testified that her daughter (the minor female claimant) does not face a risk of harm in the United States of America.

[22]   The panel carefully considered the contents of the Basis of Claim Form for the minor female claimant,⁹ as well as the Basis of Claim Form or narrative of each of her family members,¹⁰ the written submissions of the five claimants, and the testimony of the two adult claimants. The panel finds that no claim against the United States of America was forwarded on behalf of the minor female claimant.

[23]   As such, the panel finds that the minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as the minor female claimant does not face a serious possibility of persecution in the United States of America, and because her removal to that country would not subject her personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to her life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture.

[24]   The claim of the minor female claimant therefore fails.

ANALYSIS FOR THE THREE MALE CLAIMANTS AND THE ADULT FEMALE CLAIMANT

Identity

[25]   The panel finds that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants have each established their identity as nationals of Egypt, based on a balance of probabilities. They each presented their valid Arab Republic of Egypt passports.¹¹ The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these four documents.

Credibility

[26]   The panel finds that the principal claimant and the adult female claimant each testified in a straightforward and consistent manner, without the use of embellishments or contradictions.

[27]   The panel finds that the principal claimant was able to coherently describe in his testimony his opinions about the former regime of Hosni Mubarak,¹² and how those opinion began to form when he entered university in 1987. He further testified about his affiliation with the Nour Alhag in university, including how he wrote articles that were published in The Wall journal. The panel also finds that the principal claimant was able to clearly articulate his ex-patriot involvement during his residency in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, after he departed Egypt in 1993.

[28]   In contrast, the adult female claimant testified that she was not politically involved in Egypt.

Corroborating Documents

[29]   To corroborate his opposition to the al-Sisi regime in Egypt, the principal claimant presented an August 20, 2017 letter of support signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,¹³ an August 5, 2017 letter of support¹⁴ and a September 15, 2017 letter of support¹⁵ (each signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX), a March 26, 2019 letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,¹⁶ an undated letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,¹⁷ as well as three protest photographs and a social media post.¹⁸

Profiles of the Adult Female Claimant and the Minor Male Claimants

[30]   The adult female claimant testified that she and her two sons would be arrested in Egypt, simply because her husband is a member of the Freedom and Justice Party. She further testified that her husband’s opposition to the current president of Egypt would lead to physical mistreatment (in custody) for the minor male claimants.

[31]   The principal claimant testified that his family all participated in demonstrations during their time in Canada. The protest rallies took place on February 22, 2019 and March 16, 2019.¹⁹

[32]   Amnesty International reports that there is a pattern of abuse by state agents in Egypt that became particularly evident since March 2015. The abuse includes arbitrary arrests, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances. Those subjected to enforced disappearances by the National Security Agency were perceived supporters of Mohamed Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood. The victims were mostly males, ranging in age from fourteen-year-old boys to adult men in their fifties, and included students, academics and other activists, peaceful critics and protesters, and family members of government critics.²⁰

[33]   Based on the above considerations, that panel finds that the country condition evidence points to the authorities in Egypt having some interest in the adult female claimant and the two minor male claimants, based on their political opinion against the president of Egypt.

Subjective Fear Considerations

No Claim for Asylum in the United States of America

[34]   Some of the presented written evidence pointed to actions of the claimants, particularly the adult claimants, which did not seem to match the expected actions of a person who alleges fear of a return to their country of citizenship. All of the panel’s concerns were put to at least one of the adult claimants at the hearing.

[35]   The panel notes that the adult claimants and the minor male claimants did not make a claim for asylum in the United States of America, despite having opportunities to do so after the arrest of the principal claimant in July 2013.

[36]   According to an entry stamp in his presented Egypt passport, the principal claimant was granted entry into the United States of America on XXXX XXXX, 2016.²¹ The principal claimant testified that his visits to the United States of America were both for business and pleasure, and that his wife had accompanied him on the trips for business purposes. The adult female claimant confirmed in her own testimony that she never resided in a different country from the principal claimant since they were married.

[37]   When the lack of a claim for asylum in the United States of America was put to the adult female claimant at the hearing, she testified that she and her husband regarded their lifestyle in Saudi Arabia to be affluent, that the principal claimant occupied a prestigious post for his employment, and that Saudi Arabia was relatively safe for them.

[38]   The claimants presented the Saudi Arabia employment termination letter for the principal claimant. It confirmed that he was informed of the termination on February 9, 2017,²² subsequent to the last known entry of the claimants into the United States of America. The panel accepts the explanations provided within the testimony of the adult female claimant regarding their lack of claims for protection in the United States of America. As such, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference.

Decision to Return to Egypt in XXXX 2017

[39]   The panel put to the principal claimant that all members of his family had visas to enter the United States of America, or in the case of the minor female claimant citizenship in the United States of America, when they departed Saudi Arabia for Egypt on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The panel would have expected persons fearful of a return to Egypt to have taken the opportunity to travel to the United States of America, as an alternative to returning to a risk of harm in Egypt.

[40]   The principal claimant testified that he simply wanted an opportunity to visit his family on one more occasion, as he feared that he would never see them again.

[41]   The claimants presented a September 15, 2017 letter signed by a member of the expatriate directorate of the Freedom and Justice Party in Cairo.²³ XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed that the principal claimant had been in contact with him in the two months leading up to his final trip to Egypt, and that XXXX XXXX XXXX assisted the claimants to return temporarily to Egypt for the purpose of a farewell to his ailing parents.

[42]   The panel accepts the principal claimant’s explanation in his testimony about the reasons for his visit to Egypt between XXXX XXXX, 2017 and XXXX XXXX, 2017. As such, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference.

Objective Basis of the Claims

[43]   The overall objective evidence supports the claims for Convention refugee protection put forth by the principal claimant and the adult female claimant, based on their anti-government political opinion. 

Political Opposition in Egypt

[44]   The passing of the Protest Law in November 2013 has severely restricted the ability of citizens to protest peacefully against the state. The Protest Law was introduced amid a tense political environment characterised by recurrent protests.²⁴ Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment.²⁵

[45]   There were reports of physical assaults on members of political opposition movements.²⁶ Arrests, harsh prison terms, death sentences, and extrajudicial violence targeting the political opposition have been common in recent years.²⁷

[46]   Former president Mohamed Morsi was a leading Muslim Brotherhood member before his election in June 2012.²⁸ The Freedom and Justice Party is as such considered the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.²⁹ In August 2014, the administrative court system in Egypt revoked the license of the Freedom and Justice Party, and mandated its dissolution.³⁰

[47]   The Freedom and Justice Party remains banned in Egypt. Authorities have not banned other Islamist parties.³¹

Interest of the Authorities in the Two Adult Claimants

[48]   The panel carefully considered the testimony and the written evidence related to the adult claimant’s promotion of the Freedom and Justice Party in Saudi Arabia, as well as his involvement in the Rabaa Square protests. The claimant presented Basis of Claim Form narrative statements which indicated that he promoted the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh after it was founded in June 2011, until the June 2012 elections.³²

[49]   The two presented letters of support signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX³³ indicate that the principal claimant was an active member of the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh, and that his duties included creating a wide front with the goal of ending the regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, along with marketing slogans of the Freedom and Justice Party.

[50]   In regards to participation in Egypt, the claimant presented narrative statements which indicated that he and his family returned to Egypt in July 2013 to participate in the Rabaa Square protests. Immediately after his July 9, 2013 release from detention, the principal claimant evacuated his family from Rabaa Square, as instructed by his release conditions.³⁴

[51]   The panel elicited testimony from the principal claimant related to his July 7, 2013 arrest, and subsequent two-day detention, in Cairo. The principal claimant testified that he was subjected to physical assaults in custody, and that he was asked if he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The principal claimant testified that the authorities were trying to make the connection based on is political history file,³⁵ as well as his attendance at the Rabaa Square protests. The claimant was released after two days, under the sole condition that he remove himself (and his family) from the Rabaa Square protests.

[52]   The panel notes that peaceful demonstrators and bystanders may be subject to questioning, detention, arrest, and conviction for participating in or being in proximity to unauthorized demonstrations in Egypt.³⁶

[53]   The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the actions of the principal claimant and the adult female claimant, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Canada have drawn the attention of the authorities in Egypt. This is in consideration of the evidence of their public support for the opposition to government of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

[54]   As such, the panel finds that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants have each established a well-founded fear of returning to Egypt.

State Protection for the Adult Claimants and the Minor Male Claimants

[55]   The two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants each fear the authorities of Egypt.

Risk of Harm from the Authorities

[56]   President al-Sisi’s government maintained its zero-tolerance policy towards dissent, introducing repressive legislation, notably a Non-Governmental Organization law that may end independent associations, reinstating a state of emergency and continuing near-absolute impunity for abuses by security forces under the pretext of fighting terrorism.³⁷

[57]   Protesters have been subjected to various kinds of state-sponsored violence in Egypt, including long provisional detention.³⁸ The Interior Ministry’s regular police and its National Security Agency have used widespread arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture against perceived dissidents.³⁹

[58]   The panel finds it unreasonable to expect either adult claimant or either minor male claimant to seek redress or protection from the police or any other authorities in Egypt. The panel finds that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming for the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, or the two minor male claimants, in their respective particular set of circumstances. 

[59]   For clarification, the panel finds that the authorities would on a balance of probabilities, be the primary agents of persecution for the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants. The panel finds that the documentary evidence is both clear and convincing, and that it rebuts the presumption of adequate state protection for the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants in Egypt.

Internal Flight Alternatives for the Adult Claimants and the Minor Male Claimants

[60]   The state, and its National Security Agency, have national reach.

[61]   As a result of the above-referenced country condition documentation from the National Documentation Package, the panel finds that a viable internal flight alternative does not exist for the two adult claimants or the two minor male claimants in any place in Egypt, as the state and its National Security Agency are their agents of persecution.

[62]   The panel finds that the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants each have a well-founded fear of persecution throughout Egypt, and that there is no viable internal flight alternative for any of them.

CONCLUSION

[63]   The panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants each face persecution in Egypt. The panel concludes that they are each Convention refugees, based on their anti-government political opinion, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[64]   The panel therefore accepts the claims of the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants.

[65]   Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as the minor female claimant does not face a serious possibility of persecution, and because her removal to her country of citizenship would not subject her personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to her life, to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture.

[66]   The claim for protection made by the minor female claimant therefore fails.

(signed)       C. RUTHVEN  

July 23, 2019

1  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

2 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256.

3 Exhibit 2.

4 Exhibit 13, Exhibit 19, and Exhibit 20.

5 Exhibit 19.

6 Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 13, 1996.

7 Exhibit 1.

8 Exhibit 2.

9 Exhibit 3.

10 Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 19, and Exhibit 20.

11 Exhibit 1.

12 Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.3, item 1.6, item 1.8, item 2.4, item 2.5, item 2.6, item 3.9, item 4.2, item 4.3, item 4.5, item 4.7, item 4.8, item 5.6, item 5.7, item 7.4, item 7.6, item 9.3, item 9.6, item 9.7, item 10.1, item 11.2, and item 12.2.

13 Exhibit 10.

14 Exhibit 10.

15 Exhibit 12.

16 Exhibit 17.

17 Exhibit 17.

18 Exhibit 16.

19 Exhibit 19.

20 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.5.

21 Exhibit l.

22 Exhibit 10.

23 Exhibit 12.

24 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.8.

25 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5 and item 2.4.

26 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.1.

27 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.4.

28 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.8

29 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5, item 1.6, item 1.8, item 2.1, item 2.4, item 2.5, item 4.5, item 4.6, item 4.7, item 4.9, item 5.6, item 9.3, item 9.7, and item 10.1.

30 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.3 and item 4.8.

31 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5 and item 2.1.

32 Exhibit 2.

33 Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 12.

34 Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 19.

35 Exhibit 19.

36 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 7.1.

37 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.3.

38 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.8.

39 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 10.1.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 167
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 17, 2019
Panel: Kenneth D. MacLean
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Imtenan Abd El Razik
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-01796
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000360-000370

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]     XXXX XXXX XXXX, claims to be a citizens of Egypt, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

[2]     The claimant’s allegations are set out in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC), and are summarized as follows. The claimant alleges that if returned to Egypt she faces persecution on the basis of her imputed political opinion, as the family member of a person who is perceived by the Egyptian regime as being a member or supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[3]     The claimant is married to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX was born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in Sharkia Egypt.² The claimant alleges, that from June 9, 1993, until January 17, 2005, XXXX was held in detention by the security forces of the then regime of Hosni Mubarak.³ The claimant alleges that XXXX detention was politically motivated and baseless, and that he was never charged, tried, or convicted of any crimes against the Egyptian state. She alleges that XXXX was perceived to be an Islamist, and consequently, a threat to the Egyptian regime. The panel considered a judgment from a case for compensation made by the “Preliminary Court of South Cairo” in favour of the Plaintiff, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX against the Defendant, the Egyptian Minister of the Interior, in the amount of 12,000 LE plus legal fees.⁴

[4]     The claimant alleges, that following his release from detention, she married XXXX and then arranged for him to join her in Saudi Arabia, where she had worked as a XXXX since 1998. The claimant alleges that her status in Saudi Arabia was contingent upon her having employment, which she had secured with XXXX XXXX, a member of the Saudi Royal family. Similarly, the claimant alleges that XXXX was able to secure his status on the basis of his employment by XXXX XXXX, another member of the Saudi Royal family.

[5]     The claimant and XXXX have three children, all born in Saudi Arabia. The claimant alleges that her children were registered against XXXX Saudi Arabian resident permit.

[6]     The claimant alleges, that in 2007 XXXX returned to Egypt briefly, in order to sell a certain property he owned, and that during his brief time in the country he was detained by Egyptian security officials on his arrival, questioned as to his whereabouts and activities, and that on his departure he was again detained and subject to questioning. The claimant alleges that XXXX swore never to return to Egypt.

[7]     The claimant alleges that in 2016 she was given notice by her employer that her job was ending, because her employer and her children were relocating to the US so that her children could attend school there. Similarly, Ahmed received notice from his employer that his contract would not be renewed because she was reducing her staff. The claimant alleges that fearing a return to Egypt, she and XXXX set out to find a country to which they could relocate. Attempts to travel to New Zealand were unsuccessful, and subsequently, on or about October 24, 2016, she and her family were issued tourist visas for Brazil, to which they all travelled on XXXX XXXX, 2016.⁵

[8]     The claimant alleges that from their arrival in Brazil, the family encountered difficulties with crime making them fearful of remaining there. The claimant alleges that it was decided to try to find another jurisdiction to which the family could flee, and that as her residency permit was still valid, she returned to Saudi Arabia on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. Where she was temporarily sponsored as a member of XXXX XXXX staff, as a courtesy, to enable her to find employment elsewhere. The claimant alleges that by the latter half of 2017, being unable to secure employment, and despairing from being separated from her family, she felt the need to return to Brazil for which she received a visa on November 26, 2017.

[9]     The claimant alleges, that on the basis of advice received from the person helping her obtain her Brazilian visa, she applied for a visa to come to Canada, which was issued on January 8, 2018. The claimant travelled to Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, where upon she made her claim for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

[10]   The panel finds that the claimant has met the onus to demonstrate that she is a Convention refugee, on the grounds of her imputed political opinion. Her claim is accepted.

Issues

[11]   Identity and Credibility are always at issue, as is whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution. The panel also considered whether the claimant had continuing status in Saudi Arabia or had achieved status in Brazil.

Analysis

Identity

[12]   The claimant’s identity and Egyptian nationality are established on the basis of her testimony, and her valid Egyptian passport.

Credibility

[13]   The presumption of truthfulness applies to the claimant’s sworn testimony, unless there is a reason to doubt its truthfulness.⁶ Material contradictions, inconsistencies, and omissions in the claimant’s evidence, if not satisfactorily explained, are a basis upon which the RPD may find that a claimant lacks credibility. A general finding of lack of credibility on the part of the applicant may extend to all relevant information flowing from her testimony.⁷

[14]   The panel makes a general finding that the claimant is a credible witness. Her testimony was spontaneous, complete, and consistent with the information contained in her BOC. She answered all questions put to her to the best of her ability. Her testimony was appropriately buttressed by objective documentary evidence.

Claimant’s Status in Brazil

[15]   Despite having made a claim for refugee protection in Brazil, the claimant does not have any legal status in Brazil. Among the documents disclosed by the Minister, were copies of documents written in Portuguese bearing the photographs of an adult male and three children. The documents were not translated, however, each document includes the words “Solicitação de refúgio” which literally translates as “Request for Refuge.” The four documents were all issued on December 7, 2016, with validity through December 7, 2017. Also included in the document is reference to Brazilian law 9,474/1997. The panel takes notice that Brazilian law 9,474/1997 is the legislation defining the mechanisms for implementing the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, roughly the equivalent of Part Two of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act dealing with refugee protection.

[16]   The claimant testified that she too had been issued this form, but it was not among the documents she brought to Canada. Given the expiry date on the forms issued to the other family members, the claimant was asked if she had renewed her claim, which she answered in the negative.

[17]   The claimant’s husband XXXX gave testimony by teleconference from Brazil and was queried on his knowledge of these documents. XXXX testified, that while the claimant had been issued such a document in 2016, because she was no longer in Brazil it had not been renewed, as had the documents for himself and the children. XXXX testified that the renewal of his form was automatic, and that new ones were not issued for the children. The panel ordered the production of the most recent documents pertaining to XXXX and/or the children. Received post-hearing, the panel considered that XXXX is in possession of a Brazilian refugee claim form valid through December 7, 2018.⁸

[18]   Asked if his claim had been the subject of a hearing, XXXX answered in the negative. Asked if the document granted the children and him any status, he testified that it allowed them to live in Brazil and rent accommodation, but did not grant the right to have bank accounts, driver’s license, or to work. Based on these documents, and the testimony of both the claimant and her husband on the subject of their possibly having status in Brazil, the panel is stratified, that at best, XXXX and the children have open refugee claims that have not been determined.

The Claimant Cannot Return to Saudi Arabia

[19]   The panel takes notice of the fact that the admission of foreign workers to Saudi Arabia is regulated, and that in order to have a right to reside there a person requires an employment sponsor. The testimony of the claimant, about how she and XXXX were able to reside and work in Saudi Arabia, is consistent with the panel’s understanding of the process by which foreign nationals are able to reside in Saudi Arabia.

[20]   The panel considered the “Electronic Exit Re-Entry Visa (single) with Duration issued to the claimant. The document makes reference to an Iqama, which is the term used in Saudi Arabia for a residence permit, issued to foreigners who arrive in Saudi Arabia on an employment visa. The claimant’s document indicates that her Iqama was valid through January 9, 2019, but it bears an exit before date of April 14, 2018. The document stipulates that the Visa is valid for stays up to 90 days, or until the Exit Before Date, and that the Visa holder is not allowed to re-enter Saudi Arabia if the Iqama has expired or after the Exit-Entry Visa expiry date. In this case, the claimant was granted a 60 day stay, and no dependents were included in the visa. The claimant entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and therefore as of April 4, 2018, her right to re-enter Saudi Arabia had expired. The panel is satisfied that neither the claimant nor XXXX currently have a right to enter and remain in Saudi Arabia, and thus, there is no question of their being able to return there as neither have a valid Visa.

Well-founded Fear of Persecution

[21]   On the surface, the claimant does not have a claim. If anyone should be before the panel it is XXXX but he is in Brazil.

[22]   On the face of the facts before the panel, XXXX would have a clear claim for refugee protection on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution, because of his imputed political opinion. But, at what risk is the claimant? The claimant argues that the risk to her is collateral to that faced by XXXX, on the basis of their relationship and the likelihood that the regime, which is dead set on exacting retribution on the Muslim Brotherhood, would have no compunction to use the claimant in order to get to XXXX.

[23]   Is there any evidence to support such a conclusion? The panel considers that prior to 2005, the claimant was largely an unknown quantity in Egypt. She had grown up and obtained her education in an uneventful way. The Egyptian state came into her life only in 1993, after she and XXXX were engaged to be wed. XXXX disappeared several weeks after their engagement, and because the claimant was not then a tier one relative (parent or spouse), she was not allowed to visit him after he was eventually located within the Egyptian security system. It was only after XXXX release in January 2005, that the couple could continue their relationship; marrying that July. The claimant testified that three days after she wed, XXXX she was taken by a security officer to the local office and questioned. The claimant testified that she felt very worried, as this was the first time she had been to such a place.

[24]   The claimant remained in Egypt until the beginning of the school year, when she returned to Saudi Arabia and began preparing the documents to support his joining her there, which he did in 2006. XXXX had no difficulty leaving Egypt in 2006, but when he returned briefly to sell property in 2007, he was detained at the airport for several hours, both on his entry, and exit. The claimant testified that the local security office in Sharkia was contacted to see if there were any concerns. XXXX testified that it was because of his treatment in 2007 that he vowed never to return to Egypt, which he has not.

[25]   For her part, the claimant has only returned to Egypt once since 2005. In 2010 she returned to her home to visit family, taking her children, then only two with her. Asked if anything untoward befell her on this trip, the claimant testified that she entered normally but that when she went to apply for the renewal of her permit to work outside Egypt, which had been issued the same day the last time she applied, on this occasion its renewal was delayed for three days without any explanation. Thus, despite her low profile, there is some evidence that the claimant has come to the attention of the authorities in Egypt at the time of her marriage in 2005, and again in 2010.

Objective Evidence of Human Rights Abuses and the Treatment of those Perceived to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood

[26]   Both the return trips to Egypt occurred before the events of 2011, which saw Hosni Mubarak removed from office, the Muslim Brotherhood legalized and elected to parliamentary power in the 2011 general election, and ultimately, the election of Mohamed Morsi as President in June 2012. The Morsi government was brief, his being ousted by the military in a coup d’état in July 2013, following which General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi assumed power. Under the “Sisi” regime, the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned and declared a terrorist organization.⁹

[27]   The documentary evidence confirms, that under the Sisi regime,

[H]undreds of [Muslim Brotherhood] members and supporters have been put on trial and given harsh sentences in multiple cases. Rights advocates have repeatedly criticised the mass prosecutions, saying they lack guarantees for a fair trial.”¹⁰

[28]   Harsh treatment has been reported for persons alleged to be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the same document it notes that,

[A]ccording to Human Rights Watch, on 11 April 2015, “51 alleged supporters of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood” were tried in a mass trial, where a judge sentenced “37 people to life in prison and confirmed the death penalties of 14 others.¹¹

[29]   In a 2017 report published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, its author reports that, since the return of military rule in 2013, 

[A] new authoritarian regime has emerged in Egypt. The military establishment, security services, and intelligence agencies now rule the country and have managed to reintroduce fear as a daily constant in a nation still in dire straits.¹²

[30]   Elsewhere in the document it relates that:

After a brief democratic opening, a new authoritarian regime has emerged in Egypt. The military establishment, security services, and intelligence agencies now rule the country and have managed to reintroduce fear as a daily constant in a nation still in dire straits.

…

Using undemocratic legal and judicial tools with a zeal unmatched even during the long authoritarian rule of former president Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011), Egypt’ s generals are closing the public space by cracking down on autonomous civil society and independent political parties, asphyxiating the practice of pluralist politics, and pushing citizens away from peaceful and active engagement in public affairs. Scare tactics and police brutality are being used for wide-scale repression. Key opposition groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a small number of political parties, human rights defenders, and young activists are under immense pressure and struggling against the yoke of the government.¹³

[31]   Amnesty International in its 2018 “Egypt. Amnesty International Report 2017/18: The State of the World’s Human Rights” reports that:

Egypt’s human rights crisis continued unabated. The authorities used torture and other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance against hundreds of people, and dozens were extrajudicially executed with impunity. The crackdown on civil society escalated with NGO staff being subjected to additional interrogations, travel bans and asset freezes. Arbitrary arrests and detentions followed by grossly unfair trials of government critics, peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights defenders were routine. Mass unfair trials continued before civilian and military courts, with dozens sentenced to death. Women continued to be subjected to sexual and gender-based violence and were discriminated against in law and practice.¹⁴

[32]   Other items in the Human Rights section of the NDP speak to a worsening human rights situation, government actors acting with impunity, the crack down on opponents of the government perceived or otherwise. Thus, the objective evidence supports a conclusion that political freedoms and human rights are being curtailed by the government and its agents, and that, in particular, members or perceived supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are being targeted.

Expert Opinion

[33]   The claimant has filed an expert report prepared for her by Dr. XXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated December 21, 2018.¹⁵ The panel has considered Dr. XXXX Curriculum Vita, and is satisfied that he is qualified to provide an opinion on human rights and the political situation in Egypt.¹⁶ In his report, he provided a political context for his opinion, citing various sources, including several as found in the NDP for Egypt. His major conclusions mirror the panel’s findings in respect of the human rights and political situation in Egypt.

[34]   In this context, he offers the following, in respect of the claimant and her husband:

“If the [claimant] were to return to Egypt, she would face a non-trival risk of arrest given her marriage to XXXX XXXX, who from his activity at his university and local mosque, appears to be someone who the regime viewed as supporting the [Muslim Brotherhood].”

Given his lengthy imprisonment under the Mubarak regime XXXX “faces a heightened risk of reimprisonment should he return to Egypt.”

The claimant has “suffered harassment at the hands of the Egyptian security apparatus as a result of her marriage to Mr. XXXX.”

Given the sharp increase in political repression since 2013, should she return to Egypt, “the Egyptian security services might increase their harassment of [the Claimant], perhaps even arrest her, either on accusations of belonging to a banned organization or in an attempt to pressure [XXXX] to return to Egypt.”

The fact that XXXX was released from prison during the Mubarak era “is no evidence that he is no longer of interest to the Egyptian government.”

The Egyptian authorities “have long employed a kind of ‘catch and release’ approach in which large numbers of people who are known to the security apparatus (with or without charges) are swept up whenever there is unrest.”

” … targeting family members and friends of political prisoners for persecution based purely on their association with a political prisoner has been an all too common method of operation in Egypt over decades of military rule.

” … the record before me very strongly supports of the conclusion that [the claimant] has a reasonable basis for fearing political persecution should she return to Egypt.”

CONCLUSION

[35]   The panel finds, that in consideration of both the subjective and objective evidence, there is a nexus between the claimant’s situation and the Convention ground of political opinion. The panel finds that on a looking forward assessment, should the claimant be returned to Egypt, there is a serious possibility that she will face persecution at the hands of the state or state actors, owing to her being associated by marriage to a known victim of state persecution, to wit, her husband XXXX. Since the state is the likely agent of persecution, the panel need not consider either state protection or an internal flight alternative, for there would be no place in Egypt that she would be safe, from the state. Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts her claim.

(signed) KENNETH D. MACLEAN    

January 17, 2019

1  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

2 Exhibit 4, Passport, at p. 25.

3 Exhibit 7, at p. 9-13.

4 Exhibit 7, at p. 14-18.

5 Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Egyptian passport bearing Brazilian tourist visa stamp dated November 25, 2016.

6  Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 220 (F.C.T.D.).

7 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.); 11 Imm. LR. (2d) 81 (F.C.A.) at 244.

8 Exhibit 9.

9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), item 4.5.

10 Ibid. at s. 3.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid, item 4.8.

13 Exhibit 3, (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Item 4.8.

14 Ibid, item 2.2.

15 Exhibit 6.

16 Exhibit 6 & 7.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 165
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 4, 2019
Panel: William T. Short
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Zainab Jamal
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-00625
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000288 – 000294

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]     XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 34 is a citizen of Egypt who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in that country on the account of the fact that he is perceived by the ruling regime of President El-Sisi to be a member of, or a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. He accordingly claims to be a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹ The claimant also claims to be a person in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).²

ALLEGATIONS

[2]     The following factual allegations are made by the claimant that he would face persecution in Egypt because of perceived political opinion, which has established a connection to a ground for claiming protection as a Convention refugee.

[3]     The claimant alleges that he was a small businessman in Egypt and owned a shop selling XXXX and other items. He was a supporter of President Morsi, because he thought that Morsi would act for the good of the common people, when he was elected President of Egypt in 2012. However, General El-Sisi came to power by a military coup in 2013.

[4]     On May 7, 2013, the claimant was arrested while taking part in a peaceful demonstration in front of the Ibrahim Morsi Mosque. The claimant says that he was accused of being part of the Freedom and Justice Party (a part of the Muslim Brotherhood) and was detained for 17 days. During that time the claimant was repeatedly beaten, and kept in inhumane conditions, consisting of severe overcrowding, no toilet facilities, and being forced to sleep on the floor in the same place where he had to urinate.

[5]     After that experience, the claimant, upon his release, resolved not to take part in any further political activity.

[6]     All was calm until 2016, when El-Sisi took the decision to cede the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. The claimant, who held deep feelings about this subject, put a sign in his window that effectively stated that Egypt was not for sale. The claimant believes that the sign led the police to beat down his door at 4:00 am on December 5, 2016 and arrested him again. This time the claimant was taken to jail in his pyjamas where he was pushed down the steps and as a result he suffered a fracture to his left leg. Although the claimant’s leg was broken, he was refused medical attention and was beaten for making a lot of noise. During his time in jail the second time, the claimant was tortured and held in solitary confinement for four days. After being held for a total of nine days, the claimant was released.

[7]     On December 18, 2016, he immediately sought medical attention for his left leg and was informed that it had been fractured. His leg was put in a cast for about six weeks afterwards.

[8]     The claimant maintains that after this last episode, he was thoroughly sick and tired of Egypt and sought another country to live in. To that end, he travelled to the United Kingdom (U.K.) in April of 2017. In England, the claimant consulted a lawyer, who advised him that successfully claiming refugee protection would take a long time and that he would have a better chance to successfully claim refugee status if he returned to Egypt and obtained U.K. visitors visas for his wife and children. Taking the lawyer’s advice, the claimant returned to Egypt in XXXX of 2017.

[9]     After returning to Egypt, the claimant heard that Canada was also a country to which he and his family could potentially travel and seek shelter. The claimant applied for a Canadian visa in July 2017.

[10]   The claimant remembers briefly discussing the handing over of the two islands to a friend on the street. The next day, while the claimant was away, purchasing inventory for his store, he was contacted by his employee via telephone. The employee informed him that the police had come to his store and wished to arrest the claimant. Later, the police went to the claimant’s home looking for him; when he could not be found, they arrested his brother. His brother was later released after questioning.

[11]   In the meantime, the claimant hid out at a cousin’s house in another province. His visa to Canada was issued and his brother, who had held his passport was able to send it to the claimant through an intermediary.

[12]   The claimant then purchased his airline ticket to come to Canada. He was able to leave Cairo with the assistance of his cousin who had connections to officialdom. The claimant was able to move through Cairo airport where his documents were examined twice. He left Egypt on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and arrived in Canada shortly thereafter. He applied for refugee protection in December of 2018.

DETERMINATION

[13]   The panel accepts the certified copy of the claimant’s Egyptian passport³ entered into evidence and finds that the claimant is who he claims to be and is a citizen of Egypt.

The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his claim for protection.

ANALYSIS

[14]   The claimant has presented a number of documents, which in my opinion corroborate his allegations of fact. Specifically, I have taken note of the following documents and their certified translations; medical report⁴ confirming that the claimant suffered a broken leg; record of arrest;⁵ as well as letters from the claimant’s father, brother, and cousin.⁶

[15]   Given the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the allegations of fact alleged by the claimant are more likely are true.

[16]   Even though I am somewhat skeptical about the way that the claimant left Egypt for the second time, I am mindful that, although it is a dictatorship, Egypt is a creaky, inefficient bureaucracy, rife with inefficiencies and corruption and lacking the advanced information technology employed by other absolutist regimes. I accordingly find on a balance of probabilities that it was not implausible that the claimant left Egypt as alleged, passing through Cairo airport without attracting the attention of the authorities.

Subjective fear  

[17]   The largest problem that the claimant had to overcome, in this matter, was the fact that he had successfully left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 and had voluntarily returned to that country on XXXX XXXX of the same year.

[18]   When asked why he had returned to Egypt in XXXX of 2017, the claimant said in effect that he returned because even though he was fed up with Egypt and no longer wished to live there at that time, he believed that he would not have any more problems because he was not politically active as he was not taking part in any demonstrations or showing outward signs of political activism. The claimant surmises that he was speaking with a friend on the street in July 2017, and he was overheard mentioning the ceding of Tiran Island and Sanafir Island. The claimant believes that it was this incident that triggered the issue of the arrest warrant on July 23, 2017.

[19]   The claimant testified that he had sought legal advice in the U.K. and he was advised that it would be better for him to return to Egypt and apply for U.K. visas with his wife and family. He was also told it would be better for all of them to apply for asylum in the U.K.

[20]   In the circumstances, I am cognizant of three points:

[21]   At the time of his return to Egypt in XXXX of 2017, the claimant thought that he had nothing to fear from the authorities. He reasoned that they would have no further interest in him because he was no longer politically active, in any way. He did not realize at the time that he could be re-arrested on the smallest pretext, or for no reason at all;

[22]   The claimant had sought and obtained legal advice in the U.K. Unfortunately, for him, that advice was not necessarily as wise as it might have been. The claimant was acting in a reasonable way and should not in these very specific circumstances suffer for acting on professional advice in returning to Egypt. 

[23]   After he became aware of the new arrest warrant issued on July 23, 2017, the claimant immediately went into hiding and left Egypt by surreptitious means. After July 23, 2017 and until the present time, the claimant has demonstrated a constant subjective fear of the governing regime in Egypt.

Objective possibility of harm

[24]   I am of the view that the findings of fact, as noted above certainly indicate that the claimant, should he return to Egypt would face a very real danger of persecution on account of his perceived support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

[25]   Moreover, the allegations made by the claimant are not inconsistent with the National Documentation Package.⁷ The U.S. Department of State Country Reports indicate that in Egypt,

“[t]he most significant human rights issues include arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; … disappearance; torture; harsh or potentially life­ threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention … [t]he government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses….⁸

[26]   The Country Reports further points out that “[l]ocal rights organizations documented hundreds of incidents of torture throughout the year, including deaths resulting from torture.⁹ [footnotes omitted]

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTRNATIVE

[27]   Inasmuch as the Egyptian state, in this case is the agent of persecution, the issue of the availability, or effectiveness of state protection is rendered moot.

[28]   Moreover, the Egyptian state is in effective control of its national territory and there accordingly, can be no internal flight alternative for the claimant anywhere in Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[29]   For the reasons cited above, I concluded that should the claimant return to Egypt, he would face more than a mere possibility of harm for a Convention reason. He is accordingly found to be a Convention refugee and his claim is accepted.

(signed) WILLIAM T. SHORT  

February 4, 2019

¹  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, section 96

² Ibid., section 97(1).

³  Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

⁴ Exhibit 4, Medical Report from XXXX XXXX XXXX, at pp. 17-18.

⁵ Ibid., Record of Arrest, at pp. 32-35.

⁶ Ibid., at pp. 19-30.

⁷ Exhibit 3, National Document Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Item 4.5, s. 3.

⁸ Ibid., Item 2.1, s. Executive Summary.

⁹ Ibid., S. 1.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 164
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 22, 2019
Panel: Tita De Rousseau
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Diana B. Coulthard
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-25327
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000253-000259

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]     This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX 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

EXPEDITED PROCESS

[2]     The claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division and subsection 170(f) of the Act.²

[3]     In deciding the claim, the panel has considered all of the evidence before it, including the Basis of Claim (BOC) form,³ the referral documents,⁴ the country of origin information contained within the National Documentation Package (NDP)⁵ and the claimant’s documentary evidence.⁶

ALLEGATIONS

[4]     The claimant alleges that he has two somewhat separate reasons to fear persecution in Egypt: first, as a person suspected of being a member of, or being allied with, the banned Muslim Brotherhood (MB); and secondly, as a person pressured by the authorities to spy on colleagues and other persons.

[5]     The claimant alleged that in 2011 while living and working in Cairo, together with his uncle he helped establish a charity to assist the poor. That uncle was already involved in charitable work as part of his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood. The claimant alleges he never joined the Muslim Brotherhood as he tried to avoid political involvement, but together with some of his family members, he distributed goods to the needy with his charitable organization, which was not allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.

[6]     In December 2013, the organization’s premises were raided by the Egyptian National Security (ENS). Both the claimant and his uncle were arrested; the claimant was release in three days, but the uncle was detained for a month. After a subsequent arrest in January 2014, the claimant was ordered to close the charity as the ENS claimed it was a front for political activity.

[7]     The claimant alleges that for the next four years, he continued to be harassed by ENS, detained occasionally and badly treated. He was questioned each time about the Muslim Brotherhood despite his denial of any knowledge of their activities.

[8]     He finally resorted to moving frequently to avoid the ENS harassment, but he was located each time and the detentions and interrogations about the Muslim Brotherhood continued until he left Egypt.

[9]     Starting in XXXX 2016, when the claimant was travelling to Sinai for his employer, he was stopped by the Egyptian Military Intelligence (EMI at a security checkpoint, he believes at the request of ENS. He was pressed to provide information to the authorities about his colleagues in Sinai and about the local people he came in contact with.

[10]   He refused to do so, largely because he feared that as a spy, he would be identified and killed by the locals he was being asked to spy on. His refusal led to detentions and threats that he would be killed if he did not provide information.

[11]   The claimant finally decided to leave Egypt using his own passport and an existing Canadian visa by arranging payment of bribes to authorities.

[12]   He fears he would be detained, tortured and perhaps killed on return to Egypt.

DETERMINATION

[13]   The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, based on his perceived and actual political opinion which is opposed to the current regime’s policies.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[14]   The claimant has established his identity by his passport,⁷ his Egyptian Personal Identity card⁸ and other documentation. 

Credibility 

[15]   When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are indeed true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their veracity.⁹ In this case, the claimant’s evidence is internally consistent and consistent with information contained in the NDP.¹⁰ The panel concludes he is generally credible.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[16]   As noted above, the claimant’s fear of persecution in Egypt arises from two related issues; his perceived connection with the Muslim Brotherhood and his failure to comply with demands from EMI to spy on colleagues and local people in Sinai.

[17]   The claimant alleged that as his uncle was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, he was suspected of associating with the MB as well.

[18]   The charitable organization he established with his uncle for non-political reasons was shut down in January 2014 as the government suspected that such organizations were connected to the Muslim Brotherhood charitable groups. The claimant was detained and interrogated by authorities about the Muslim Brotherhood on many occasions after that, despite his insistence that he was not connected with the group and had no knowledge of their activities.

[19]   The documentary evidence confirms that since 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned along with its associated organizations:

The USSD report covering events in 2016 observed that: ‘The Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party and its NGO remained illegal, and the Muslim Brotherhood was a legally designated terrorist organization.

…According to Amnesty International in their Report 2015-2016: ‘By the end of [2015], the government said it had closed more than 480 non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) because of their alleged links to the MB group.

…The DFAT report state ‘DFAT understands that most, if not all, NGO’s affiliated to the Brotherhood have either been shut down, had their assets seized, and/or had their board replaced with government appointees. ¹¹

[20]   The documents indicate that because the MB was declared a terrorist organization, all its activities were thereby criminalized and many were detained:

Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report for 2017 similarly indicates that civil society organizations “estimate that as many as [40,000] people were being detained for political reasons most of them for real or suspected links to the Muslim Brotherhood.¹²

[21]   Although the claimant’ s organization was not in fact associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, his uncle’s involvement both with the charitable organization and the MB brought the claimant to the attention of the authorities. His testimony that he was arrested, detained and tortured on many occasions indicates that while the authorities likely knew he was not a member of MB, or they would not have released him after the interrogations, he was a person they had targeted for constant surveillance and persecution. His attempts to relocate were unsuccessful and the persecution continued until he left Egypt.

[22]   The claimant alleged that in addition to the continual detentions and interrogations about the MB, starting in 2016, he was pressured by authorities to spy on colleagues in his workplace. The claimant alleged that as part of his employment, he was required to travel on occasion to Sinai, which is an area of ongoing conflict. The claimant refused to cooperate as he feared he would be killed by those persons he was asked to spy on.

[23]   By his refusal, the claimant has made it obvious to the authorities that he does not agree with government actions and policies. He has established that his political opinion is opposed to that of the regime.

[24]   The panel concludes that there is a serious possibility that upon return to Egypt, he would suffer persecution by government authorities for his perceived and real political opinion.

State Protection

[25]   A state, unless in complete breakdown, is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens; international protection comes into play only when a refugee claimant cannot obtain protection domestically. However, in this situation, where it is the state itself that is the agent of persecution, there is no state protection available to the claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[26]   There is no safe or reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA) location available to this claimant. He has tried to move residences frequently to avoid detection by the authorities, but they located him each time. As it is the authorities themselves the claimant fears and the Egyptian government is control of the entirety of the country, an IFA is not available.

CONCLUSION

[27]   The claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, because of his well-founded fear of persecution for his political opinion. The claim is accepted. 

(signed) TITA DE ROUSSEAU

May 22, 2019