Categories
All Countries Turkey

2021 RLLR 98

Citation: 2021 RLLR 98
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 19, 2021
Panel: Ayoni Shaibu
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Steven Blakey
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TC1-04119
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

MEMBER:

Introduction

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TC1-04119. You are claiming to be a citizen of Turkey and seeking refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In assessing this claim, I’ve considered the Chairperson’s guideline 4, Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. This is to ensure fairness and equity in the hearing process and this decision. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render a decision in this matter orally. The written decision will be sent to you shortly and may be amended for spelling and grammar purposes.

Determination

[2]       I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of membership in a particular social group, namely women fearing gender-related persecution and violence in turkey. I find that the claimant — that you have established that you face a serious possibility of persecution upon your return to Turkey. And the reasons for the decision are as follows.

Allegations

[3]       You allege that you are a citizen of Turkey and of Kurdish ethnicity, that you have been in an abusive relationship with your ex-boyfriend, XXXX (ph), who is a supporter of the KP and the MHP, and you face persecution at his hands for your – for refusing to continue in the relationship with him. You also fear persecution from your family, in particular your father, for refusing to accede to a forced marriage to one of your cousins, XXXX (ph). You have stated that you cannot return to Turkey because if you do, you will be forced to marry your cousin, and if you refuse the marriage, you will be the victim of an honour killing by your father or your cousin’s family. In addition, you have also claimed that if you are not the victim of an honour killing, the abuse by your ex-boyfriend will continue. Fuller details of your claim are contained in your Basis of Claim form as amended. You have alleged that there is not state protection for you and no internal flight alternative.

Identity

[4]       Your personal identity as a citizen of Turkey has been established by your credible testimony and a copy of your Turkish passport. I find on the balance of probabilities that your identity and country of reference have been established.

Nexus

[5]       I find that there is a connection between the persecution you have suffered and your membership in a particular social group, namely women fearing gender-related violence. Therefore, I find that there a link between what you fear and one of the five enumerated Convention grounds in s. 96 of the Act. I have therefore assessed your claim under s. 96.

[6]       Regards to credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness, and therefore I believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony in your Basis of Claim form as amended. You have described in specific detail your testimony regarding the threats that you’ve received from XXXX and how he continues to stalk you online. Your testimony was coherent, consistent, spontaneous, and detailed. You described in detail his propensity for violence towards you and others, and his threats towards you are quite convincing, and there were no contributions. XXXX is a supporter of the ruling AKP or MHP party, comes from a wealthy Turkish family. He would use his connections in government and the police to find you anywhere in Turkey. These are corroborated by the letter from XXXX (ph) [inaudible] messages he sent you on social media. I attach full weight to these documents as I have no reason to doubt their authenticity, and they establish the allegations of persecution.

[7]       You have also described your father’s overbearing and controlling behaviour, how he made decisions about almost everything in your life. You stated that he dictated where you schooled, the courses you took, where you worked, and even where you lived. If he knew of your relationship with XXXX, he would not have approved. His decision to marry (sic) your cousin was communicated to you while in Turkey. You believe that your father or XXXX family will kill you as a matter of honour if you refuse to accede to their request. Your father has [inaudible] the cousin in the past and she [inaudible] submit to the first marriage. All of these details were in keeping with your Basis of Claim narrative.

[8]       You’ve also provided credible evidence — in support of your credible evidence — with reliable supporting documents, which are the letter from your mother, XXXX, and some other friends who are familiar with your personal circumstances, including the threats against you. These — I refer to Exhibit 5, 6, and 7. These documents corroborate the threats against you, they corroborate the allegations of persecution, I have no doubts to doubt — no reason to doubt the authenticity.

[9]       Based on my analysis above, I find on the balance of probability that you have established the allegations of persecution in Turkey.

Objective Documentary Evidence in the NDP

[10]     The objective evidence from the NDP for Turkey clearly supports your credible evidence. Violence against women is a serious widespread problem both in rural and urban areas of Turkey. According to research undertaken by the Ministry of Family and Social Policy, it’s six percent of women. So, they have stated that they have been subjected to physical or psychological violence by their parents or family. Approximately 70 percent of women reported they were physically assaulted by parents, family members, or neighbours. However, the actual figure may be even higher as violence against women is likely to be underreported for reasons including stigma, fear of reprisal, [inaudible] perpetrator, a lack of understanding on the part of women of their rights, language barriers, particularly for Kurdish women, and a lack of trust in law enforcement. Societal acceptance of domestic violence also contributes to underreporting.

[11]     In regard to honour killings, honour killings [inaudible] in the name of honour continues to take place. [inaudible] of the women killed by men in 2016 is 68 percent were killed by partners or former partners and [inaudible] by relatives. Family members sometimes pressure girls to [inaudible] preserve the family’s reputation. However, given that I have found that you are being forced to marry your own cousin, I find on a balance of probability that you would be the victim of an honour killing in Turkey. Given, therefore, I find that there is an objective basis for your fear of your family and ex-boyfriend as violence against women is a serious widespread problem in Turkey and is often perpetrated by family members.

[12]     I am persuaded that your father is as controlling as you allege and that you’re in a situation where you are going to be forced to marry someone other — or that you will be killed to preserve your family reputation. Accordingly, I find that your subjective fear of persecution on the grounds of your gender in Turkey is well-founded as it is supported by the objective evidence from the NDP. You have established on the balance of probability that you will be a victim of forced marriage or honour killing if you return to Turkey.

[13]     With regards to well-founded fear of persecution and risk of harm, given that you’ve been abused by your — I think I’ve already dealt with that. Let’s see. Okay. Given that your ex-boyfriend has abused you in the past, I find that more likely than not he will continue to do so in the future if you were to return to your family in Turkey.

[14]     With regards to state protection, I have considered whether adequate state protection is available to you. There’s a presumption — rebuttable presumption of state protection. Your documentation and the oral evidence credibly show that you were subjected to improper [inaudible] conduct by the police at some point, and the police have visited your home while in Canada at the instigation of XXXX to make you aware of his connections and to threaten you. Your subjective evidence in this respect is consistent with the objective evidence from the NDP for Turkey which reveals that — like I’ve mentioned before, that — the high number of honour killings in Turkey. [inaudible] government media report, honour killings have plagued Turkey for decades. It is unclear if victims were Turkish citizens or if honour killings took place in refugee populations in the country. The objective evidence also shows that individuals convicted of honour killings can be sentenced to life imprisonment, but NGOs report courts can reduce actual sentences due to mitigating factors, which include anger or passion. Actions considered damaging can include extramarital sex, refusal of an arranged marriage, choosing one’s own spouse without family approval, becoming a victim of rape, same-sex sexual acts, or liberal behaviour and dress. The police are also known not to adequately respond to victims of — victims’ complaints, especially women. Your personal experience also demonstrates this. Accordingly, based on the totality of the credible subjective and objective evidence in this case, the Panel finds that — I find that the presumption of adequate state protection is rebutted on the balance of probabilities.

[15]     With regards to internal flight alternative, I considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you in Istanbul. There are two prongs to the test and both must be met for a viable IFA. In that sense, the prongs are whether a proposed IFA is safe and the second is whether a proposed IFA is reasonable. In this case, I find on the balance of probabilities that there is no viable IFA for you. As indicated in both your subjective evidence and the objective evidence from the NDP, the conditions of institutional [inaudible] Turkey and the persecution of women exists throughout Turkey. You testified that XXXX is wealthy and has connections in government and the police. You described an incident where he got away from the police who had stopped him by a road check by simply making a call. While I do not find that your father can find you in Istanbul based on his profile, I believe you when you say that he can — that XXXX can get you through the police and his connection of wealthy friend in government, and also as he has demonstrated a continued interest to stalk you on the internet [inaudible] by changing your contact details. You’re not expected to live in hiding in the IFA.

[16]     I’ve also considered the fact that you’ve been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This will interfere with your ability to live a healthy life, thus making it difficult for you to successfully relocate in Turkey. Accordingly, I’m satisfied on the balance of probability that you will face more than a mere possibility of persecution based on your gender anywhere in Turkey and there is no viable IFA in Turkey. So, for all of these reasons, I find that you have successfully established that you face a forward-looking serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground and there is no IFA for you.

[17]     My conclusion: based on the totality of the evidence and my analysis above, I find you to be a Convention refugee and I accept your claim. Congratulations.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Categories
All Countries Nigeria

2019 RLLR 214

Citation: 2019 RLLR 214
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 19, 2019
Panel: Luna-Martine Jean
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Melissa Singer
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: MB8-03575
Associated RPD Number(s): MB8-03576, MB8-03652, MB8-03654, MB8-03655
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 000344-000356

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, her adult daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and her minor grand-children, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, are citizens of Nigeria. They seek refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[2]       The panel appointed, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the designated representative of her children, the minor claimants.

DETERMINATION

[3]       For the following reasons, the panel concludes that the claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are “Convention refugees” pursuant to section 96 of IRPA.

[4]       For the following reasons, the panel concludes that the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is neither a “Convention refugee” pursuant to section 96 of IRPA nor a “person in need of protection” pursuant to subsection 97(1) of IRPA.

[5]       In rendering this decision, the panel considered Guideline 4: “Women Refugees Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution”; Guideline 9: “Proceedings before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression”; the “Policy on the Use of Jurisprudential Guides” and the Jurisprudential Guide TB7-19851.

THE CLAIMANTS: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX

Allegations

[6]       The claimants’ allegations are found in a narrative attached to Ms. XXXX Basis of Claim form (BOC) submitted on March 6, 2018, and an amended narrative dated March 13, 2019. The allegations can be summarized as follow.

Allegations in the BOC

[7]       Ms. XXXX indicated that her husband’s family practice female genital mutilation (FGM). This tradition is performed on girls who are nine years old. Ms. XXXX indicated that her opposition to FGM has led to her being subjected to verbal, physical and psychological abuse from her in-laws. In particular, she was beaten on six occasions by her sister-in-law, who wanted to forcefully take her eldest daughter, XXXX, to perform FGM.

[8]       Subsequently, Ms. XXXX and her family moved to Ikorodu for safety. However, members of the Badoo cult attacked and killed their pregnant neighbor for ritual purposes. The claimants then decided to flee to the United States for safety, on XXXX XXXX, 2017.

[9]       The claimants entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018.

Allegations in the amended narrative

[10]     Ms. XXXX added that she had vowed not to circumcise her daughters, after witnessing the death of her brother-in-law (XXXXXXXX)’s daughter, on XXXX XXXX, 2015, of complications from the circumcision procedure.

[11]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016, Mrs. XXXX XXXX, Ms. XXXX sister-in-law visited Ms. XXXX with five family members, to announce that XXXX would be circumcised on her ninth birthday. On XXXX XXXX, 2016, her in-laws came once again to remind Ms. XXXX and her husband that her daughter, XXXX, was to be circumcised. She was informed that no one in the family could escape this process. Ms. XXXX received subsequent visits from her in-laws on XXXX XXXX, 2016, and XXXX XXXX, 2017.

[12]     Ms. XXXX further indicated that Ms. XXXX would subject her to verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Ms. XXXX had to be hospitalized due to injuries sustained from the physical assaults.

[13]     Ms. XXXX added that following the death of her pregnant neighbor, by the hands of members of the Badoo cult on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, she was planning to move to another state. However, her sister-in-law works for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), which has been rumored to work with the Badoo cult group. Ms. XXXX believes her sister-in-law to be “well connected” and have the means to locate her to perform the circumcision ceremony on XXXX.

[14]     Ms. XXXX indicated that, while in the United States, her husband visited them from XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 and returned to Nigeria on XXXX XXXX, 2018. At that time, her husband informed her that his family is still adamant on circumcising XXXX and were pressuring to have the family return to Nigeria.

[15]     In addition, on XXXX XXXX, 2018, Ms. XXXX indicated that she received he call from her brother-in-law, XXXX XXXX. He informed Ms. XXXX that the in-laws were continuing to pressure her husband to have the claimants return to Nigeria at all costs, and had even called the United States immigration. Upon hearing this news, the claimants left the United States and entered Canada, on XXXX XXXX, 2018.

Analysis

Identity

[16]     The claimant’s personal and national identities as citizens of Nigeria are established, on a balance of probabilities, by the copies of their respective Nigerian passport.

Credibility

[17]     The panel found that Ms. XXXX testified in a spontaneous, sincere, detailed and straightforward manner. The panel noted no contradictions, omissions, inconsistencies or implausibility for which the claimants did not provide reasonable explanations.

[18]     At the hearing, Ms. XXXX credibly testified that she first learned that her in-laws practiced FGM when they were preparing the circumcision of her brother-in-law’s daughter, XXXX. She indicated XXXX was circumcised on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014, and became ill following the procedure. Ms. XXXX rendered a credible and emotional testimony while explaining that XXXX fell ill from an infection shortly after the procedure and passed away XXXX months later on XXXX XXXX, 2015.

[19]     Ms. XXXX then testified on her sister-in-law’s visit on XXXX XXXX XXXX2016. She recounted in detail that she was caring for her son in a bedroom and overheard a conversation between her husband and sister-in-law about circumcision. Ms. XXXX was called to the living room and her sister-in-law advised that XXXX would be circumcised whether Ms. XXXX liked it or no. Ms. XXXX did not respond to her sister-in-law at that time, but later had a discussion with her husband stating her opposition to FGM.

[20]     Ms. XXXX also testified about her sister-in-law’s visit on XXXX XXXX, 2016, and that she was accompanied by six men, whom she believes to be thugs. Ms. XXXX knew these men to be involved in criminal activities, such as harassment and extortion. Ms. XXXX explained that she was threatened during the conversation because she dared to look at her sister-in-law, Ms. XXXX, in the eyes and refused to follow her orders, which is to consent to XXXX circumcision. Her sister­ in-law said that Ms. XXXX would lose her life if she continued to defy her. Ms. XXXX indicated that she was slapped and punched by her sister-in-law and a neighbor had to intervene to stop the assault. The panel finds that Ms. XXXX testified in a credible manner with respect to the incident that transpired on XXXX XXXX, 2016.

[21]     Ms. XXXX explained that the most severe assault occurred on XXXX XXXX, 2017. Ms. XXXX received another visit from three sisters-in law, Ms. XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, and the thugs who accompanied Ms. XXXX. Ms. XXXX testified that another argument ensued regarding XXXX circumcision and she was physically assaulted by Ms. XXXX and Ms. XXXX, while Ms. XXXX was encouraging them to continue to hit Ms. XXXX. Further, Ms. XXXX explained that her husband intervened to stop the fight and, in turn, was attacked and stabbed by the thugs who accompanied Ms. XXXX. Ms. XXXX testified that she sought medical attention on XXXX XXXX, 2017, due to abdominal pain from being kicked in her belly during the fight. The panel finds that Ms. XXXX testimony in this regard to be credible. Her testimony is further corroborated by a medical report respecting her admission to the hospital on XXXX XXXX, 2017, stating that Mr. XXXX was admitted to the hospital on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, due to being stab wound in his back, an affidavit from her husband1. The panel also notes that Ms. XXXX has submitted an affidavit from a neighbor who witnessed her being beaten by her in-laws on two occasions: XXXX XXXX, 2016 and XXXX XXXX, 2016, which further supports Ms. XXXX allegations respecting the abuse she endured due to her opposition to FGM2.

[22]     In addition, at the hearing, Ms. XXXX testified that she fears both her daughters, XXXX and XXXX, would be forcefully subjected to FGM if retumed to Nigeria. She indicated that as XXXX is approaching nine years of age, she fears that her in-laws will want to perform the circumcision ritual on her as well. The panel finds that Ms. XXXX testimony was sincere and spontaneous considering that her immediate fear, upon leaving Nigeria, was for her daughter XXXX who was at the time nine years old, the age when circumcision occurs amongst her in-laws.

[23]     Overall, the panel considered Ms. XXXX credible testimony and finds that the claimants have demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, the essential elements of their allegations.

[24]     In addition, the panel finds that Ms. XXXX allegations are corroborated by the objective documentary evidence on the prevalence of FGM in Nigeria. According the objective documentary evidence, Nigeria is the country with the largest number of instances of FGM in the world3. Approximately, 20 million women and girls have undergone FGM, with the highest prevalence in South East and South West Zones, which is where Ms. XXXX in-laws reside, in Lagos (in the South West)4. Further, the objective documentary evidence indicates the following:

FGM is most likely to take place in Nigeria during childhood. The major exception is when women in certain ethnic groups undergo FGM during the birth of their first child, because of a belief that it is critical that a baby not touch its mother’s clitoris (Alo & Babatunde, 2011). Many girls are cut as infants (16% of girls aged 0 to 14 undergo FGM before their first birthday), and most women (82%) aged 15 to 49 who have had FGM state that they were cut before the age of five (DHS 2013, pp.352-3).5

[25]     Although the objective documentary evidence indicates that FGM is most likely to occur during infancy, the date suggests a wide age range where girls would be subjected to this practice. In this case, based on an analysis of Ms. XXXX testimony and the objective documentary evidence, the panel concludes that XXXX and XXXX now respectively eleven and seven years old, fit the profile of girls who would be subjected to FGM in Nigeria. The panel reaches this conclusion based on the prevalence of FGM in the South West zone of Nigeria, which includes Lagos state and the prevalence of the practice amongst Ms. XXXX in-laws.

State Protection

[26]     The panel also considered whether the claimants could avail themselves of the protection of the Nigerian authorities against Ms. XXXX in-laws. In this case, Ms. XXXX testified that she reported the XXXX XXXX, 2017, incident to the police on XXXX XXXX, 2017. However, concerning her in-laws’ persistence on circumcising XXXX, Ms. XXXX was told that the police would not intervene as it was a cultural matter. Ms. XXXX added that the police counseled her to allow her daughter to be circumcising it would be bring peace to her home. The panel finds Ms. XXXX testimony to be credible and is also corroborated by the objective documentary evidence.

[27]     According to the objective documentary evidence, Nigeria has adopted the Violence against Persons Prohibition Act (VAPP), which prohibits FGM.6 However, the VAPP only applies in the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja. Additionally, thirteen states, including Lagos State, has adopted anti-FGM legislation.7 However, the objective documentary evidence also states that the practice of FGM is “widespread, with low rates of reporting and prosecution”.8 In addition, there is a disparity between the adoption and the implementation of anti-FGM legislation. The objective documentary evidence reveals that the anti-FGM laws are “weak and in most times not even implemented”.9 The objective documentary evidence indicates:

Federal law criminalizes female circumcision or genital mutilation, but the federal government took no legal action to curb the practice. While 12 states banned FGM/C, once a state legislature criminalizes FGM/C, NGOs found they had to convince local authorities that state laws apply in their districts.10

[28]     Further, the objective documentary evidence states the following with respect to the police’s attitude towards FGM:

However, the Australian DFAT reports that it “assesses as credible advice from local sources that it remains extremely difficult for women and girls to obtain protection from FGM” because despite an increase in reports to the police and the NHRC, community support for these practices and the traditional attitude of police help to support them (Australia 9 Mar. 2018, para. 3.49)11.

[29]     In light of the foregoing, the panel concludes that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection. The evidence shows, in a clear and convincing manner, that individuals who fear or oppose FGM cannot obtain adequate state protection.

Internal Flight Alternative

[30]     The panel finds that the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria. The panel considered whether the claimants could safely relocate to Abuja, Ibadan or Port Harcourt. The panel considered the interests and the capacity of Ms. XXXX in-laws to locate and pursue the family in the proposed IFAs.

[31]     Ms. XXXX testified that her in-laws, and in particular her sister-in-law, Ms. XXXX, has continued to search for the family, in spite of their having left Nigeria. Ms. XXXX testified that she received a phone call from her brother-in-law, XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2018. Her brother-in-law is still upset by his daughter’s death, following a circumcision procedure. He advised Ms. XXXX that Ms. XXXX has instructed the family to continue to look for the claimants.

[32]     Further, Ms. XXXX testified that her sister-in-law is a powerful person. She works for the XXXX and is also dating the XXXX of the XXXX local chapter in Lagos. Ms. XXXX believes that her sister-in-law could use XXXX resources, both at the local and national level, to locate them throughout Nigeria, such as handing out a picture of Ms. XXXX to her contacts at the various local chapters to have them search for her. The panel also considered Ms. XXXX testimony that her sister-in-law entertains relationships with criminal elements. These thugs have accompanied her sister-in-law during her visit with Ms. XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2017. They stabbed her husband, while Ms. XXXX was beaten by her in-laws. In addition, the panel also took into consideration Ms. XXXX testimony that her in-laws have resorted to physical violence against her, which caused her to be hospitalized because of her refusal to submit their daughter XXXX to the circumcision ceremony.

[33]     Considering all the above, the panel finds that the claimants have demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. XXXX in-laws have the interests and the necessary motivation to pursue the claimants in the proposed IFAs. Consequently, the panel finds that the claimants could not live safely in the proposed IFAs.

[34]     Given the panel’s conclusion that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFAs, the panel does not need to examine the reasonableness of relocating to the proposed IFAs and the factors outlined in the Jurisprudential Guide TB7-19851. The panel notes that the personal circumstances of the claimants are markedly different from that of the claimant described in TB7-19851. Although the claimants fear non-state actors, their fear is not localised. The panel reaches this conclusion based on Ms. XXXX credible testimony on the interests, motivation and capacity of her in-laws, and in particular her sister-in-law to locate them. This includes threatening and beating Ms. XXXX to the point that she required hospitalization. The panel also rests this conclusion that Ms. XXXX has employed the help of criminals in order to threaten and physical assault Ms. XXXX in order to secure the circumcision of her daughter. The panel also takes the consideration that Ms. XXXX sister-in-law has connections nationwide through her employment which she could use to locate the claimants.

[35]     Consequently, the panel determines that XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX have demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 of IRPA, by virtue of their membership in a particular social group being girls who would be subjected to FGM. In addition, the panel concludes that XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX have demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution due to their membership in a particular social group, namely the family of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX.

Conclusion

[36]     For the foregoing reasons, the panel finds that the claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are “Convention refugees” pursuant to section 96 of IRPA.

[37]     The panel accepts their refugee claim.

THE CLAIMANT: XXXX XXXX XXXX

Allegations

[38]     Ms. XXXX allegations can be found in a narrative appended to her BOC on March 1st, 2018, and an amended narrative dated March 13, 2019. The allegations can be summarized as follows.

Allegations in BOC

[39]     Ms. XXXX indicates being physically abused by her late husband. The abuse she endured caused her to be admitted to the hospital for weeks. She indicates that there was a time that her family and children urged her not to resume living with her late husband, but after some months, her late husband and her in-laws convinced her to return to the marital home.

[40]     Her husband passed away three years ago. After his passing, Ms. XXXX in-laws accused her of having killed her husband. The in-laws then stated that she needed to perform a ritual to prove that she was not responsible for her husband’s passing. The ritual involved her shaving her head and drinking the water used to bathe the body of her late husband. Lastly, Ms. XXXX was informed that she was to marry one of her brothers-in-law. Ms. XXXX objected to the ritual and the marriage. Ms. XXXX stated that she was given a deadline by which to abide by her in-laws’ request, or else she would be killed.

[41]     When the threats to her life became too much to bear, Ms. XXXX relocated to her church, where she stayed until she left Nigeria for the United States on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. She entered Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.

Allegations in amended narrative

[42]     Ms. XXXX specified that her husband died on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. She indicated that following her husband’s passing, her sister-in-law, XXXX XXXX, accused her of having caused his death in order to inherit her late husband’s property, and because of the domestic violence she had endured during the course of their marriage.

[43]     She indicated that her in-laws explained to her the ritual she would have to follow and gave her until XXXX XXXX, 2017, to carry out their instruction, or she would be killed. She did not report her in-laws to the authorities because the head of the family, XXXX XXXX, is a high chief and is powerful.

[44]     She indicated she moved out of her marital home on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and stayed at her church in Ikorodu, until she left Nigeria.

Analysis

Identity

[45]     The claimant has established her identity and Nigerian nationality, on a balance of probabilities, by submitting a copy of her Nigeria passport.

Well-founded fear of persecution / Risk of harm

[46]     The panel finds that Ms. XXXX testified in a sincere and spontaneous manner. However, despite the principal claimant’s subjective fear, the panel finds that there is no objective basis for her fear.

[47]     At the hearing, Ms. XXXX explained that the head of the family, XXXX is a high chief. According to her testimony, the XXXX family, and in particular XXXX, is known everywhere. He is called to villages to perform rituals. For instance, Ms. XXXX testified that when a wife is thought to have killed her husband, he performs rituals to call on the spirit of the dead to go after the wife. In this context, Ms. XXXX states that she fears her in-laws, because they are idol worshippers and has been running away from them for that reason.

[48]     Noting Ms. XXXX testimony that she fears her in-laws because they are idol worshippers, the panel asked her what she believes her in-laws would do to her because of their belief. Ms. XXXX responded that her in-laws requested that she go to the shrine and kneel. She must use her mouth to pick kola nuts. Ms. XXXX further explained that as the ritual proceeds, the in-laws would perform incantations and if a person eats the fruit, their stomach would swell until it bursts.

[49]     Ms. XXXX testified that when she married her husband, they took an oath at the shrine and her face was marked. She indicated that she cannot return to Nigeria and tell her in-laws that she would not perform the rituals they requested because of the oath. She believes that they would kill her because of the oath she made. At the hearing, the panel asked Ms. XXXX why she believes that she would be killed because of the oath she took. She responded that, at the time, her late husband had informed her that once he dies, he would tell his family that she had killed him and that she would later join him. Even in Canada, Ms. XXXX believes that her in-laws are trying different rites to reach her and believes that she is sleeping like “someone who is dead”.

[50]     Further, the panel asked Ms. XXXX how she believes that she would be harmed if returned to Nigeria. She indicated that her in-laws went to the church where she resided to look for her. They had an argument with the pastor and they threatened to destroy him and to ruin his life. When questioned as to how her in-laws would be able to ruin or destroy the pastor, Ms. XXXX responded that they would use “charms” or “black magic”.

[51]     With respect to her allegations that her in-laws would force her to marry her brother-in­ law, Ms. XXXX explained that she informed them of her opposition to the marriage. She explained that her in-laws advised her that she had to perform some rituals if she refused to marry her brother­ in-law. The ritual involved making an oath that she did not kill her husband which includes drinking the bathing water of her deceased husband. As a Christian, Ms. XXXX refuses to perform this ritual. Ms. XXXX added that based on her mother’s in-laws’ culture, her mother would be killed if she persists in her decision not to perform the requested rituals. Ms. XXXX testified that Ms. XXXX was told by XXXX to follow her Christian religion to see if it would come to her rescue in this situation.

[52]     The panel considered Ms. XXXX testimony and notes that she has a genuine belief in the supernatural powers of her in-laws, and in particular, XXXX. However, the panel determines that this fear is not objectively well-founded and does not constitute a personalized risk of harm within the meaning of subsection 97(1)b)(ii) of the IRPA. Further, in the panel’s view, Ms. XXXX has a sincerely held belief that she would be killed by her in-laws due to her refusal to perform their mandated rituals by way of black magic. However, Ms. XXXX has not demonstrated that her fear is objectively well-founded or, on a balance of probabilities, constitute a risk of harm pursuant to subsection 97(1) of IRPA. Otherwise stated, Ms. XXXX has not demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution pursuant to section 96 of IRPA or that she would, on a balance of probabilities, be personally subjected to a risk of torture, to a risk to her life, or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment pursuant to subsection 97(1) of IRPA if returned to Nigeria.

Conclusion

[53]     For the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that XXXX XXXX XXXX, is neither a “Convention refugee” under section 96 of IRPA nor a “person in need of protection” under subsection 97(1) of IRPA.

[54]     The panel rejects her refugee claim.

Luna-Martine Jean

June 19, 2019

1 Document 6 – Exhibit C-11;      Document 5 – Exhibits C-4 and C-8.

2 Document 5 – Exhibit C-6.

3 Document 3 – National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 5.2: Nigeria: The Law and FGM, 28 Too Many, June 2018.

4 Ibid, tab 5.28: Response to Information Request NGA105628.E., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 13 September 2016.

5 Ibid, tab 5.31: Country Profile: FGM in Nigeria. 28 Too Many. October 2016.

6 Ibid, tab 5.12: Response to Information Request NGA106183.FE., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 29 October 2018.

7 Ibid, tab 5.12.

8 Supra note 3.

9 Ibid.

10 Document 3 – National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 2.1:Nigeria. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States, Department of State, 13 March 2019.

11 Supra note 6.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 212

Citation: 2019 RLLR 212
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 14, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Chantal Ianniciello
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06478
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003695-003698

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and her minor daughter, the joined claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as citizens of Egypt who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).1 The claimants’ identities have been established by copies of their passports.2

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The principal claimant is a XXXX-year-old woman who is a victim of gender-based persecution, namely domestic violence. The principal claimant fears gender-based persecution for her daughter, namely female genital mutilation (FGM); her daughter is XXXX years old. The claimants left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. The claimant was subject to an arranged marriage on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2008. The claimant describes life with her ex-husband as a “living hell,” including daily beatings and verbal abuse. The claimant was able to escape to Qatar for a time, but was not able to regularize her immigration status in Qatar. The claimant left Qatar in XXXX 2018. The claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 and signed her Basis of Claim (BOC) on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.3 The panel has reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution4 in this decision.

DETERMINATION

[3]       The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act because they would face a serious possibility of gender-based persecution if they return to Egypt.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[4]       The claimants submitted supporting documents, including identity documents and news articles on the prevalence of FGM and violence against women and girls in Egypt.5 The objective evidence supports the claimants’ fear of return to Egypt and indicates that among the most significant human rights abuses in Egypt is violence against women and girls, including sexual violence by military personnel; the evidence further notes that the government did not generally take steps to investigate, prosecute or punish officials who committed human rights abuses.6 The objective evidence also indicates that authorities rarely intervene in domestic violence cases.7 Reports indicate that spousal violence in common in Egypt and there are very few mechanisms in place to protect women and violence against women goes virtually unpunished and there are some reports that authorities are dismissive or abusive to women who report domestic violence.8

[5]       The objective evidence also indicates that the prevalence of FGM in Egypt is high, around 87% and is typically performed between birth and the age of 17.9 The primary reasons for FGM cited are tradition and religion; approximately 90% of the population is Muslim and Islam is the state religion.10 Despite FGM laws, enforcement is still insufficient in Egypt and FGM continues to be carried out by health professionals.11 Finally, Egypt’s human rights crisis continues unabated:

Women and girls continued to face inadequate protection from sexual and gender­ based violence, as well as gender discrimination in law and practice. The absence of measures to ensure privacy and protection of women reporting sexual and gender-based violence continued to be a key factor preventing many women and girls from reporting such offences. Many who did report offences faced harassment and retaliation from the perpetrators or their families. In some cases, state officials and members of parliament blamed victims of sexual violence and attributed the incidents to their “revealing clothing”. In March a young student was attacked and sexually assaulted by a mob in Zagazig city, al-Sharkia governorate. Instead of arresting the perpetrators and bringing them to justice, the Security Directorate in al-Sharkia governorate issued a statement mentioning that by “wearing a short dress” the victim had “caused the mob attack”.12

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative  

[6]       Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel find that there is not adequate operationally effective state protection available to the claimants in their particular circumstances. Further, the panel finds that it is not objectively reasonable to expect the claimants to relocate in Egypt in their particular circumstances as a young single mother with few resources and the absence of state protection available to them. Accordingly, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to them.

CONCLUSION

[7]       For the forgoing reasons, the panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.

(signed)           Kerry Cundal  

January 14, 2019

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

2 Exhibit 1.

3 Exhibit 2.

4 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, November 13, 1996.

5  Exhibit 4.

6  Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, June 29, 2018, Item 2.1.

7  Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

8  Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.5 Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY104706.E.

9  Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.

12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.

Categories
All Countries Yemen

2019 RLLR 208

Citation: 2019 RLLR 208
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 24, 2019
Panel: P. Roche
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Talia Joundi
Country: Yemen
RPD Number: TB8-10588
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003240-003246

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who claims to be a citizen of Yemen and is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[2]       Paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA2 provides that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) may allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, unless the Minister has notified the RPD of the Minister’s intention to intervene within the time limit set out in the Refugee Protection Division Rules.3 Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA4 directs each division to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.

[3]       The claimant’s claim was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Yemeni claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness for the expedited process on December 20, 2018.

[4]       Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that this claim meets the criteria for expedited determination. This claim has been therefore decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.5

[5]       The panel considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.6

[6]       The panel has also taken into consideration the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Civilian Non-Combatants Fearing Persecution In civil War Situations.7

DETERMINATION

[7]       The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA, for reasons of imputed political opinion.

ALLEGATIONS

[8]       The claimant’s complete allegations are set out in her Basis of Claim form (BOC)8 and need not be repeated here in detail. To summarize briefly, the claimant alleges a fear of persecution due to the fact that she will be targeted by all groups and militias involved in the conflict, due to her gender. She further alleges that she would be targeted by the Houthi-Saleh militia because her father is from south Yemen and as such are viewed as being pro-government. Due to the ongoing conflict in that country, the claimant believes that as a single woman there is no place for her to live in safety nor is there any state protection.

IDENTITY

[9]       The panel is satisfied with the claimant’s personal identity and Yemeni citizenship, based on a certified true copy of her Yemen passport.9

CREDIBILITY

[10]     With respect to the issue of credibility, the panel has reviewed the claimant’s BOC10, her intake forms11 and supporting documentation.12 The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimant only had temporary student status in Egypt. The panel has also reviewed country conditions documentation contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Yemen13.

[11]     The claimant’s evidence is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible or contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Yemen. Moreover, her allegations are corroborated by personal documents14 that the panel does not have sufficient reason to discount. The panel therefore finds the claimant’s evidence credible and that the allegations in this case are probably true.

[12]     The panel finds that the claimant does have a subjective fear of persecution, should she return to Yemen.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[13]     The NDP indicates that the war in Yemen continues unabated.15 Civilian authorities did not maintain effective control over the security forces. Houthi-Saleh rebels controlled most of the security apparatus and state institutions. Competing family, tribal, party and sectarian influences also reduced government authority.16 Non-state actors, including tribal militias, reportedly committed significant abuses and few actions led to prosecution.17

[14]     The documentary evidence confirms that all parties to the continuing conflict committed war crimes and other serious violations with inadequate accountability measures in place to ensure justice and reparation to victims.

[15]     The Saudi Arabia-led coalition, supporting the internationally recognized Yemeni government, continued to bomb civilian infrastructure and carried out indiscriminate attacks, killing and injuring civilians.

[16]     The Houthi-Saleh forces indiscriminately shelled civilian residential areas in Ta’iz city. The Yemeni government, Houthi-Saleh forces and Yemeni forces aligned with the United Arab Emirates and engaged in illegal detention practices including enforced disappearance and torture and other ill-treatment.18

[17]     In regards to gender, the documentary evidence states the following;

Societal discrimination severely restricts the freedom of movement of women, although restrictions vary by location … ‘Social discrimination severely restricted women’s freedom of movement. Women in general did not enjoy full freedom of movement, although restrictions varied by location. Some observers reported increased restrictions on women in conservative locations, such as Sa’ada. Oxfam reported that men at checkpoints increasingly insisted on adherence to the “mahram” system, the cultural obligation of women to be accompanied by male relatives in public, in areas controlled by radical Islamic groups, such as AQAP. The report also noted that female respondents ranked the key factor limiting women’s freedom of movement as the lack of cultural acceptance, followed by lack of security.19

[18]     Escalating conflict and forced movement of populations continue to create risks and instances of sexual and gender-based violence (GBV), including sexual exploitation and abuse. Focus group discussions have shown that women report psychological distress due to violence, fear for family members and fear of arrest or detention, whilst men report distress due to loss of livelihoods, restricted mobility and being forced to perform “women-specific roles”. These kinds of stress can contribute to increased levels of domestic violence, placing more women at risk.20

[19]     The law states that authorities should execute a man if convicted of killing a woman. The penal code, however, allows leniency for persons guilty of committing an “honor” killing or violently assaulting or killing a woman for perceived “immodest” or “defiant” behavior. The law does not address other types of gender-based abuse, such as beatings, forced isolation, imprisonment, and early and forced marriage.

[20]     The law provides women with protection against domestic violence, except spousal rape, under the general rubric of protecting persons against violence, but authorities did not enforce this provision effectively. Victims rarely reported domestic abuse to police and criminal proceedings in cases of domestic abuse were rare.21

[21]     Violence against women has increased 63 percent since the conflict escalated, according to UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund]. Forced marriage rates, including child marriage, have increased. Yemen has no minimum age of marriage. Women in Yemen face severe discrimination in law and practice. They cannot marry without the permission of their male guardian and do not have equal rights to divorce, inheritance or child custody. Lack of legal protection leaves them exposed to domestic and sexual violence.22

State protection and internal flight alternative

[22]     The panel finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in this case. The state of Yemen is currently in crisis and as such is not able to provide effective state protection to the claimant. As previously noted above, with respect to Yemeni state institutions (regarding the year 2017):

Civilian authorities did not maintain effective control over the security forces. Houthi-Saleh rebels controlled most of the security apparatus and state institutions. Competing family, tribal, party, and sectarian influences also reduced government authority. …

The Hadi government took steps to investigate, prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses; however, impunity was persistent and pervasive. Houthi-Saleh influence over government institutions severely reduced the Hadi government’s capacity to conduct investigations.23

[23]     The panel finds that given the current country conditions there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant in Yemen, as there is no place where the claimant can access adequate state protection in Yemen.

CONCLUSION

[24]     For the above reasons, the panel finds that the claimant is a person in need of protection and accepts her claim.

(signed)           P. ROCHE

January 24, 2019

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

2 Ibid., section 170(f).

3 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

5 Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.

6 Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(l)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

7 Chairperson’s Guideline 1 of the Protection Division: Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act: Civilian Non-Combatants Fearing Persecution in Civil War Situations. Effective date: March 7. 1996.

8 Exhibit 2.

9 Exhibit 1.

10 Exhibit 2.

11 Exhibit l.

12 Exhibits 5 and 6.

13 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Yemen (October 31, 2018).

14 Exhibit 5.

15 Exhibit 3, NDP for Yemen (October 31, 2018), item 2.1.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Exhibit 3, NDP for Yemen (October 31, 2018), item 2.2.

19 Ibid., item 1.5.

20 Ibid., item 1.6.

21 Ibid., item 2.1.

22 Exhibit 3, NDP for Yemen (October 31, 2018), item 2.4.

23 Ibid., item 2.1.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 207

Citation: 2019 RLLR 207
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 25, 2019
Panel: Camille Theberge Ménard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Melissa Singer
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB9-05861
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003114-003121

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is an Egyptian citizen. She is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[2]       According to her account, the claimant fears for her life should she return to Egypt because of death threats received from her mother and her paternal uncle, who wish to restore the family honour.

[3]       Throughout the hearing and its analysis, the panel took into account and applied Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (November 1996)1 and Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB.2

DETERMINATION

[4]       In response to a request from the claimant’s counsel, the panel found that the claimant was a vulnerable person within the meaning of the Chairperson’s Guideline 8. No particular procedural accommodations were requested other than applying the Guideline requirements. The panel notes that only women were present in the hearing room and that the panel took care to adopt an informal approach.

[5]       The panel determines that the claimant is a “Convention refugee” for the reasons set out below.

ALLEGATIONS

[6]       The claimant’s full allegations can be found in her response to question 2 of her Basis of Claim Form and the attached appendices.3 Here is a brief summary.

[7]       The claimant comes from a traditional Muslim family that she describes as very conservative. She states that, when she was eight or nine years old, her mother forced her to submit to female genital mutilation.

[8]       The claimant was married, in a marriage arranged by her family, in 2013. However, in 2017, her husband decided to divorce her, despite her mother’s entreaties that he remain married to the claimant.

[9]       After her divorce, the claimant realized that she was pregnant and decided to return to Cairo to find a solution to secure some of her investments.

[10]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the claimant had to make an emergency visit to a physician, who had to terminate her pregnancy. A few days later, the claimant went to the United States for four months. She returned to Cairo believing that she would be able to carry on with her life as usual.

[11]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, a neighbour who had seen the claimant’s physician and learned that she had had to terminate a pregnancy called her family’s home to find out how she was doing.

[12]     After learning this, the claimant’ s mother and uncle beat her violently and forcibly confined her from that moment on in the family home. The claimant’s uncle threatened to inflict more serious injuries on her for having, in his opinion, dishonoured the family, implying that she deserved to die.

[13]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, a friend of the claimant’s helped her escape from her home.

[14]     During the night of XXXX XXXXtoXXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the claimant took a flight to the United States.

[15]     Upon arriving in the United States, she claimed asylum and was detained by the American authorities.

[16]     The claimant was successful in her credible fear interview and was in a state of shock; she was not released until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.

[17]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the claimant arrived in Canada illegally and signed this claim for refugee protection on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.

[18]     She alleges that no state protection is available to her in Egypt and that she has no internal flight alternative (IFA) because of her family’s connections with the police.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[19]     The claimant’s identity and the country of reference were established on the basis of her testimony and the documents filed, including a copy of her Egyptian passport contained in the record.4

Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[20]     The panel examined whether this claim could meet the criteria of section 96 of the IRPA. The claimant fears being killed because of her family members’ religious and cultural beliefs, according to which she dishonoured her family by becoming pregnant out of wedlock. Her fear is therefore connected to her status as a woman from a Muslim family.

[21]     There is a nexus to one of the five Convention grounds, namely, membership in a particular social group, that of women in Egypt, as well as religion, because of her failure to comply with certain Islamic religious precepts.

Credibility and serious possibility of persecution

[22]     The panel finds that the claimant testified in a credible manner throughout the hearing. The panel did not identify any major, determinative contradictions or any omissions regarding the important elements of the reasons she fears being persecuted should she return to Egypt.

[23]     The claimant was able to explain the events she alleged and respond to the panel’s various concerns. Throughout the hearing, the claimant was very emotional and was visibly quite troubled by the situation and her experiences since leaving Egypt.

[24]     Despite the many events described in her account and the panel’s deconstructed approach to asking questions, the claimant was able to respond to the panel’ s questions in a satisfactory manner. She also had no trouble explaining certain inconsistencies arising from the written version of her account.

[25]     The claimant filed various documents in support of her allegations.

[26]     The first is a sworn statement from the friend who supported her and helped her escape from her family home on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, after she had been forcibly confined there for about a week.5

[27]     The next is a statement from another old friend of the claimant’s, in whom she had confided about the domestic abuse she had suffered at the hands of her mother and uncle for several years.6 She also produced a statement from her brother describing the moment when he and the claimant’s parents had returned to the family home and discovered that the claimant had fled.7 He also confirmed the history of family violence to which the claimant’s mother and uncle had subjected her for years.

[28]     The panel did not identify any credibility issues with these documents, which were submitted along with identity documents for each of the authors. In the circumstances, the panel grants each of them the appropriate probative value.

[29]     The objective evidence supports the claimant’s allegations that women are victims of violence when they defy religious precepts that are often imposed by their families and sanctioned by society at large. First, according to the sources consulted, it appears that the simple fact of not wearing a veil, when one is from a Muslim family and in society in general, may lead to daily harassment.8 Some sources indicate that “violence against women seems to be socially legitimized and surrounded by a [UN English version] ‘culture of silence’.”9

[30]     Honour crimes, as defined by United Nations expert groups, remain relatively socially accepted in Egypt and are seemingly still a common practice within the most traditional families.10

[31]     For these reasons, the panel gives credence to the claimant’s allegations and concludes that, if she were to return to Egypt, she would face a serious possibility of being persecuted by her mother or her uncle for disobeying certain Islamic religious precepts.

State protection and internal flight alternative

[32]     The panel concludes that the claimant has rebutted the presumption and would not have access to adequate state protection in Egypt, in light of the objective documentation on the country.

[33]     The documentary evidence indicates not only that there is no particular prohibition condemning domestic violence against women, but also that, while domestic violence may fall under certain provisions of the penal code relating to bodily harm, various procedural impediments render such provisions ineffective for all practical purposes.

[34]     In practice, it appears that prosecutions are extremely rare and that it is even fairly complicated to file a complaint with the police as a basis for prosecution.11

[35]     Thus, impunity surrounding violence against women is an ongoing issue,12 to the point that Foreign Affairs states that a woman who wants to report a harassment incident to police “is required by law to catch her attacker and bring him and two other witnesses to the police” (Foreign Affairs 27 Jan. 2014). The same source quotes a representative from HarassMap as saying that women “regularly ‘have to fight with the police to actually make the report, in the street, and at the police station'”.13

[36]     Moreover, with respect to honour crimes, it is indicated that the provisions of the penal code do not protect victims:

Though the Penal Code is the primary law for the prosecution of perpetrators of violence against women including “honour killings”, in practice it often serves as a means to mitigate punishment. As noted above, Article 17 of the Penal Code provides broad judicial discretion to reduce sentencing in circumstances where leniency is “necessitated”. Judges have found “honour killings” to be “justified” on the basis that the victim allegedly violated prevailing social values or brought shame to the family. Article 237 of the Penal Code specifically enables judges to lower the sentencing in murders prompted by adultery.14

[37]     The panel also examined the question of whether a reasonable IFA exists for the claimant in Egypt. The objective evidence does not show that the situation for people in the same circumstances as the claimant is different in other parts of the country.

[38]     Furthermore, the claimant stated that her father is ex-military, her uncle is a former government secret intelligence officer, two of her mother’s cousins are ex-military, and some of their children are former police officers and two are presently working as police officers. The claimant managed to obtain a copy of an identity document belonging to her father establishing that he was formerly a member of the military.15

[39]     The documentary evidence clearly indicates that corruption and nepotism are problems within the national police service16 and that corruption is an ongoing problem among law enforcement officials. A document entitled “Fighting corruption or protecting the regime? Egypt’s Administrative Control Authority” written in February 2019 contains the following passage:

But state corruption hardly ended with Mubarak’s ouster. Fraudulent self-enrichment by high level and lower-level officials alike remains widespread across the vast bureaucracy. Many Egyptians say they have to pay a bribe to receive government services. Donors continue to point to corruption as an obstacle to foreign investment and economic development. Transparency International said of the situation in 2018, “very few improvements exist on the ground” and “serious corruption issues are currently challenging the country.”17

[40]     In the circumstances, the panel concludes on a balance of probabilities that, if the claimant were to return to her country, her agents of persecution would have an interest in locating her anywhere in the country and would have the capacity to do so. Accordingly, no IFA is available to her.

Conclusion

[41]     In light of the foregoing, and after reviewing all the evidence, the panel determines that the claimant has discharged her burden of establishing that she would face a “serious possibility” of persecution on a Convention ground if she were to return to Haiti. The panel concludes that she would not have access to state protection in Egypt or to a viable IFA.

[42]     For these reasons, the refugee protection claim is allowed.

(signed)           Camille Théberge Ménard

October 25, 2019

1 Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. Effective date: November 13, 1996.

2 Chairperson’s Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB. Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protecton Act. Effective date: December 15, 2006. Amended: December 15, 2012.

3 Document 1 – Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC);

Document 2 – Basis of Claim Form.

4 Document 1 – Information package provided by CBSA/IRCC.

5 Document 6 – Exhibit C-2: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s friend, XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX2019.

6 Document 6 – Exhibit C-3: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s friend, XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX 2019.

7 Document 6 – Exhibit C-4: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s brother, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX-2019.

8 Document 3 – Archive – National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 5.1: Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY105005.E, November 26, 2014, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

9 Document 3 – Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 5.5: RIR EGY104706.FE, December 23, 2013, IRB.

10 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 2.9: A Past Still Present. Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Egypt. Equal Rights Trust. December 2018, at page 232/399.

11 Document 3 – Supra, footnote 9.

12 Document 3 –Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 2.1: Egypt. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. March 13, 2019. Pages 41 to 45.

13 Document 3 – Supra, footnote 8. At page 5/8.

14 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 2.9: A Past Still Present. Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Egypt. Equal Rights Trust. December 2018. At page 232/399.

15 Document 6 – Exhibit C-7: Duly translated National Identity Document of the claimant’s father, XXXX XXXX.

16 Document 3 – Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 9.5: The State of the Justice and Security Sector in Egypt. Migrationsverket. Lifos. September 10, 2015. At pages 41 et seq.

17 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 7.4: Fighting Corruption Or Protecting The Regime? Egypt’s Administrative Control Authority. Project on Middle East Democracy. Jessica Noll. February 2019.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 204

Citation: 2019 RLLR 204
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 11, 2019
Panel: Miryam Molgat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Larry W Smeets
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-02869
Associated RPD Number(s): VB8-02882, VB8-02883
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002857-002873

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant” aka “the principal claimant” aka “the mother”), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the associated claimant” aka ” the son” aka “the male claimant”), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the associated claimant” aka “the daughter”) 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 (IRPA).1

DETERMINATION

[2]       The panel finds that the principal claimant and the male claimant are not Convention refugees as they do not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Egypt. The panel also finds that the principal claimant and the male claimant are not persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1) of the IRPA.

[3]       The panel finds that the daughter is a Convention refugee as she does have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Egypt. Its reasons are as follows:

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The claimants’ complete allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim Form (BOC)2 and need not be repeated here in detail.

[5]       To summarize briefly, the principal claimant is a woman born in XXXX. She is a long- time resident of Saudi Arabia. She came to Canada with her two minor children. She came because she feared female genital mutilation and/or forced marriage being imposed on her minor daughter, the associated claimant. She feared this might happen at the hands of her in-laws, who she describes as a very conservative, powerful and influential family in Egypt. She describes her mother in law and her four children as fanatic Sunni Muslims. The in-laws, upon learning that the daughter had reached puberty, demanded that she undergo Female genital mutilations (FGM) so that she could marry after the procedure. The principal claimant underwent FGM as a child. The claimant also fears that her minor children might be abducted as there is a problem in Egypt with human organs sold on the black market.

[6]       In Egypt, the principal claimant still has her mother, and three brothers and a sister, all residing in Cairo.

[7]       The claimants also allege fear of risk to their lives, risk of torture or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the same agent of harm.

[8]       The claimants allege that neither state protection nor safe and reasonable internal flight alternatives are available in their country of nationality.

Chairperson’s Guidelines

[9]       In coming to this determination, the panel has considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution3 and in particular, Part D, which addresses special problems faced by women in demonstrating that their claims are trustworthy and credible at determination hearings. Sorne of the factors noted include cross­ cultural misunderstandings and violence-related trauma. The panel has considered these guidelines while assessing questions regarding subjective fear in the claim of the female claimants. Reasons for drawing on these guidelines include objective country conditions evidence and how they relate to the claimant herself at the time of the hearing. The panel has also considered Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues4 in coming to a decision in the claims of the minors.

ANALYSIS

[10]     The main issues are credibility and subjective fear and Internal Flight Alternative (IFA).

DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE

[11]     The principal claimant was appointed as Designated Representative for the two associated claimants, who are both minors.

Identity

[12]     The claimants’ identities and citizenship have been established by the testimony and supporting documentation filed and entered in these proceedings. The passports are on file,5 along with other documents.

Nexus

[13]     For the claimants to be Convention refugees, the fear of persecution must be “by reason of’ one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition. In other words they must have a well- founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

[14]     The panel finds that the harm feared by the daughter is by reason of membership in particular social group as females fearing female genital mutilation and/or forced marriage. For the mother, the nexus is membership in a particular social group as a female seeking to prevent FGM and/or forced marriage of her minor daughter. The panel finds that the harm feared by the son is also by reason of one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition, namely membership in a particular social group, in this case, family member of his mother and sister, whose nexus is gender-based.

Credibility

[15]     When credibility is assessed there are two principles that are followed. Firstly, when a claimant swears to the truthfulness of certain facts there is a presumption that what he is saying is true unless there is reason to doubt it.6 Secondly, when assessing credibility the panel is entitled to rely on rationality and common sense.7 The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.

[16]     The panel accepts that the principal claimant has undergone FGM and that she is opposed to her minor daughter being submitted to it. The panel accepts that the claimants are unable to return to Saudi Arabia to live and work. This matters as it means that their claims must be assessed in the context of Egypt only. The evidence on the possibility of return to Saudi Arabia was inconsistent as the husband, in his testimony, said the principal claimant’s work position has been “saudified”. This is not what the principal claimant said, as she testified that her husband’s position had been “saudified” and that, as a result, her own status in Saudi Arabia was in peril. Either way, the panel accepts that the claimants cannot return to Saudi Arabia to live and work.

[17]     The principal claimant’s evidence on the year of the fateful trip to Egypt and resulting kidnapping in Cairo was inconsistent. She orally confirmed her oral testimony that the year of the trip was 2017. When it was put to her that her BOC says it was in 2016, her explanation was that she had noticed it when completing the BOC and had told the BOC interpreter to correct it. When asked why, then, she affirmed a non-corrected BOC of which she said she knew the contents, the claimant said that it was because the BOC interpreter told her he had corrected the error. The claimant also suggested that the panel ask the BOC interpreter about the matter. It is the claimant’s responsibility to establish the elements of her claim, not the panel’s. The claimant offered to get proof from the BOC interpreter that he had made this mistake, but she failed to do so. This is in spite of the resumption in the hearing being set after this initial testimony was taken. The panel draws a negative inference, finding that this is a material inconsistency which is not reasonably explained. This matters as the claimant repeatedly stated that the problems with her in-laws began around the end of 2016 or early 2017, when her daughter had her first menstrual period. The panel draws a negative inference and finds she would have gotten the year right if it had happened as alleged.

[18]     This inconsistency relating to the year of the trip to Egypt also matters as the claimant, when asked why, if she knew, as alleged, by the XXXX of 2017, that her in-laws intended to forcibly perform FGM on the daughter and marry her off, why she decided to go to Egypt a few months later with her daughter. The principal claimant’s explanation was that she needed to process the renewal of her work visa. She also said that her mother was ill and she needed to go see her. The panel finds this is insufficient explanation for a lack of subjective fear demonstrated by the claimant’s re-availment to Egypt, the daughter’s in the XXXX of 2017 and/or the XXXX following her first menstrual period. This is all the more damaging to the claims given that the claimant had a US visa issued in XXXX 2016 which she could have used to travel to the USA instead of going to Egypt in the summer.

[19]     The fact that the claimant did travel to the USA in XXXX 2016, on her US visa issued in XXXX 2016, is damaging to the claim as, if the panel accepts, for the sake of analysis, that the threat to perform FGM on the daughter was made in the XXXX of 2016, then it begs the question of why the claimant failed to make an asylum claim in the USA and why she returned to Saudi Arabia, to then travel later that summer, or the following summer, to Egypt. Either way, even if the panel were to accept that, in fact, the abduction of the daughter took place in XXXX 2016 and not 2017, the principal claimant’s behavior is problematic and raises significant credibility and subjective fear issues. The panel finds that the inconsistency in the timing of the abduction of the daughter, be it in 2016 or 2017, is problematic either way. That is the case because the claimant chose to return to Egypt with her daughter after learning of her in-laws’ intentions against her daughter. It is also because, if the claimant learned this in early 2016, it leaves the question of why she herself failed to make an asylum claim in the USA when there in XXXX 2016. As seen in these Reasons, the claimant’s explanation for this failure to claim in the USA was problematic. This is significant as the claimant alleges that her own life is at risk as a result of her in-laws’ intentions.

[20]     The panel finds that the claimant has not established that her in-laws have the ongoing motivation and capacity to harm her or her daughter or her son. The reason for this is that the claimants spent 4-5 days after threats uttered against them, after the principal claimant went to the police right after picking up her daughter from her sister in law XXXX home, where the daughter was being forcibly prepared for FGM. This gives the agents of persecution plenty of reason to want to harm or re-abduct the daughter, and to carry out their threats against the principal claimant. Instead, the in-laws did not harm the claimants, who remained in the claimants’ family home for four to five days. The principal claimant confirmed that the in-laws knew where she was at his time. During that time, there was no physical interference, no reported physical contact at all, and the claimants were able to leave Egypt for Saudi Arabia in a normal fashion without their exit or freedom of movement being otherwise impeded. In addition, the principal claimant was able to go about dealing with the paperwork required to renew her work permit in Saudi Arabia without being impeded. Presumably, that required her physical presence. The panel finds that, if the agents of persecution were intent on harming the claimants, they would have done so. That is because they knew their location during these four to five days. The claimant alleges that, during those four or five days, her in-laws went to her family home, saying to her: “who do you think you are?” They also allegedly threatened her by saying that they can reach her at any point in any way. The panel finds that this was an empty threat, which the in-laws did not act on in spite of the opportunity to do so. The panel accepts that the in-laws harbor ill will towards the claimant, but the panel finds that does not mean that they will act on it. This is all the more so given that the claimant had gotten her way, by securing her daughter, taking her away from her aunt Iman’s home, and committing the affront of reporting the matter to the police. Surely this would warrant more than empty threats from someone intent on carrying out the threat and/or imposing FGM on the daughter and/or killing the principal claimant for her opposition to such things being perpetrated on her daughter.

[21]     The panel finds that the claimant has not established that her in-laws have the power or influence which she attributes to them. She testified that she knows they have influence because they do not let her out of her sight. She also testified that, according to tradition, they have all the habits and influence. This is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence. It is too vague, and insufficiently grounded in any kind of specific, clear evidence of power or influence which is separate from the claimant’s belief t in its existence. This weakness of the claimant’s evidence exists in spite of repeated questions by the panel bearing on the power and reach and influence of the in-laws. The panel further notes that neither the claimant’s sister nor her husband, in their letters of support in exhibit 4, mention any of this when referring to the in-laws. The sister says that the claimants were chased everywhere by the in-laws. The panel does not take this as evidence of the in-law’s influence or presence throughout Egypt. The claimant alleged that, during the trip to Egypt when her daughter was abducted, she went to XXXX XXXX XXXX, where her in-laws targeted her by telephone. She also alleged that she then went to Cairo, where she was targeted. This, in fact, raises yet more credibility questions regarding why she later went to Cairo, where she knew her in-laws reside. The husband’s relatives appear to have lost interest and have retreated into excommunicating those family members whose behavior or values they reject, such as the husband’s. The panel notes that, in spite of the husband’s family alleged influence, there is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that they have threatened him since breaking off contact with him. This is yet another indication, in the panel’s mind, that his family do not have the motivation and/or capacity to pursue the claimants, given that this ex­ communication directly relates to the claimants.

[22]     The panel finds that the claimant has not established that her in-laws or their clan are present throughout Egypt and/or in XXXX XXXX XXXX. When asked, she said they are present in Assouan, Cairo and perhaps, the Sinai. The panel notes that this is unclear evidence pertaining to the Sinai. The panel finds that the claimant has not established on a balance of probabilities that her in-laws are anywhere except Assouan and Cairo. This matters to the question of the geographical reach of the in-laws, which in turn relates to the question of IFA in XXXX XXXX XXXX. It also matters as it relates to the influence of the in-laws. The claimant has not established that the in-laws have influence outside of Cairo and Assouan.

[23]     The claimant failed to establish with sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that her in-laws have the power and influence in Egyptian society that she alleges. When asked, her answers were vague and circular. The husband’s testimony that his family are a well-established and well-connected, wealthy family with influence is insufficient. That is because, though asked more than once, he failed to provide any specific indication of his family’s influence. This credibility finding matters as it relates to a lack of sufficient evidence which is material to the question of IFA.

[24]     The claimant referred to the registry where she would have to register if she moved to the proposed IFA. The panel accepts the existence of this registry, but does not see how it matters given that the claimant has not established that the agents of harm have the motivation and capacity to seek and/or obtain her personal information through the registry.

[25]     Counsel in his questions tried to establish that the possibility of the husband having ongoing communication with the claimants were in the proposed IFA would pose a risk of serious possibility of persecution to the claimants in the IFA. This, in counsel’s view, would be as a result of his own past wavering position on the question of FGM as it applies to his daughter. Counsel also tried to make the case that the future would yield foreseeable pressure on the husband from the in-laws, implying that the husband would waiver and that this would result in a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants. The panel finds that the counsel has not made out his case in either of these assertions. That is because his views are not supported by sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence. When one looks at what the claimant knows and has experienced, her evidence is different and does not support counsel’s point. That is because the claimant clearly stated more than once in testimony that her husband now shares her position regarding FGM as it applies to the daughter. The claimant clearly stated that there is no flexibility in regard to FGM and the daughter, i.e. that it cannot happen. The claimant said this in the context not of her own personal will, but rather in the context of the couple she forms with her husband. What counsel is suggesting amounts to speculation and, as such, does not merit much weight.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[26]     The following possible IFA was put to the claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX.

First prong: no serious possibility of persecution or no personalised risk under subsection 97(1).

[27]     The panel finds that the proposed IFA, on a balance of probabilities, does not pose a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA as defined in section 96 of IRPA and/or a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in the IFA – as per subsection 97(1) of IRPA for the claimants. The persecution and/or risk to life envisaged in this section relates to the threats of FGM and/or early or forced marriage on the daughter. This analysis is done on a balance of probabilities. Once the IFA has been identified, the onus of proof that the IFA is not viable is on the claimants. As seen in the above credibility analysis, the claimants have not established that the agents of persecution have the motivation or capacity to track them in the proposed IFA. The agents of persecution had the opportunity to persecute the claimants in Cairo and did not do so. This was in spite of their continued contact at the time with the claimants. In addition, the husband is now a staunch ally of the claimants in regards to their fear of persecution. The claimant described her husband in these terms and he testified accordingly providing evidence which supported the principal claimant’s testimony in this regard. Furthermore, the husband’s relationship with his own family of origin has evolved as they have excommunicated him as a result of his staunch support of the principal claimant against his own family’s wishes. For these reasons, it is not credible that the in-laws would locate the claimants in XXXX XXXX XXXX as there is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that they would seek to do so or know how to do so.

[28]     The principal claimant alleges that, as someone who would oppose any FGM or forcible marriage on her daughter, she herself would be face a serious possibility of persecution. As for the forward-looking risk of FGM for the daughter in the IFA, the country conditions documents speak to a diminishing risk and rate of FGM for her generation.8 Furthermore, there is insufficient credible evidence that anyone other than her father’s family would seek to impose it on the daughter. As that allegation is resolved by an IFA, the principal claimant’s claim on this ground fails. The same can be said for the risk of forced marriage being imposed on the daughter. There is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that the possibility of persecution comes from anyone other than her father’s family. As is the case for FGM, that possibility is undermined by the panel’s finding of an IFA, and its earlier finding of lack of motivation and capacity of the in-laws to locate and harm the claimants in the IFA. In either case, be it FGM or forced marriage, the daughter is shielded in effect from societal risk by her parents’ staunch resolve to prevent that from happening to her. There is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the principal claimant in the IFA. This also impacts any related possibility of persecution for the son based on his membership in the family.

Second prong: IFA is objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances:

[29]     Having considered the conditions in geographic area and all the circumstances of this case, including those particular to the claimants, the panel finds that it is objectively reasonable for the claimants to seek refuge in the proposed IFA for the following reason. Once the IFA has been identified, it is up to the claimants to establish that it is not a viable solution. The claimants have failed to establish that the proposed IFA is not objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances.

RESIDUAL CLAIMS OF THE PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT AND SON

[30]     Although significant and repeated discrimination may amount to persecution, whether or not it rises to the level of persecution depends on the particular circumstances of the case. Persecution is defined as the systematic or sustained or repeated violations of one’s fundamental human rights. When considering whether the principal claimant faces cumulative discrimination amounting to persecution resulting from sexual harassment of women in Egypt, the panel finds that the claimant had an insufficient explanation for why she took the repeated prolonged trips to Egypt if the sexual harassment was problematic for her. This is important as each time she returned to Egypt, she was essentially exposing herself to a risk which she has not alleged as existing in Saudi Arabia, her country of residence at the time. The panel notes that the claimant said she would go to Egypt to visit her family and to renew her Saudi work permit. The trip the claimant took to XXXX XXXX XXXX appears to serve neither of those goals, thus undermining the reasoning that the only reason for her return to Egypt was to see family and renew her work visa. The claimant has also failed to establish why renewing her work permit and seeing her family necessitated lengthy such frequent trips to Egypt. Her passports bear stamps that document trips to Egypt occurring more than once a year on average.9 Given the weak evidence from her in regards to sexual harassment in Egypt, this is inconsistent with a finding that she chose out of necessity to put up with the sexual harassment each time she returned to Egypt.

[31]     The panel also notes that the claimant failed to reasonably explain why she failed to claim asylum when in the US prior to the trip to Egypt when her daughter was abducted. Absent further credible and trustworthy evidence, the claimant’s explanation of anti-Muslim sentiment in the US as a result of the voting in of Mr. Trump as US president cannot stand as a reasonable explanation for her failure to seek asylum in the US at this time on the grounds of sexual harassment in Egypt. That is because, at that time, the US presidential elections had not been held and Mr. Trump was not the anticipated candidate and/or winner of it. The claimant’s lack of subjective fear of the sexual harassment she faced in Egypt also came out of her failure to follow counsel’s lead when questioned on her statement that she had to stay home 24/7 as a result of sexual harassment. Her testimony that she thought of making an asylum claim in the US based on her female gender is undermined by her explanation that the problems did not start until 2017, before which her daughter had not yet reached puberty. Her evidence, when seen as a whole, is insufficient to sustain a positive determination based on a risk of sexual harassment as it applies to her.

[32]     The panel accepts that, as a general rule, women suffer discrimination or harassment in Egypt. In some cases this discrimination or harassment can amount to persecution. The documentary evidence lists the following factors among women: education, wealth, age, marital status, rural versus urban residence, and the specific geographic area of Egypt where the person resides. These factors are described as impacting, among other things: early or forced marriage, exposure to FGM and pro-FGM attitudes, access to education, age at first birth, whether it is a home birth, and access to employment.10 There is also information that the “relative level of participation of women in household decision-making is positively correlated to their age and level of education and wealth”.11 The panel finds that this objective evidence supports a finding that not all women in Egypt face discrimination amounting to persecution, as not all women are equally affected. That is in spite of widespread sexual harassment in the country.

[33]     It was up to the claimant to establish that the sexual harassment and/or other discrimination she faces as a woman in Egypt, when seen cumulatively, rises to the level of persecution in her particular case. She failed to do so. This failure on the part of the claimant is all the more significant given that, as she had lost her long-time status in Saudi Arabia, she was well aware that she faced returning to reside and work in Egypt. This failure on the part of the claimant to establish a case is also all the more significant given that, during the many years she spent residing in Saudi Arabia, she returned regularly to Egypt where she visited family. Her contacts with her family and, presumably, others in Egypt, during these trips, would have given her information and knowledge on the question of sexual harassment and/or discrimination against women beyond her own experiences during those numerous trips. The claimant’s testimony that, as a woman, she had to stay indoors in Egypt “24/7” is insufficient given her insufficient explanations for her lack of subjective fear in the face of this and the previously mentioned credibility issues arising out of her evidence in regard to this aspect of her claim. She failed to establish how the social context of Egypt vis a vis women impaired or nullified her enjoyment of her fundamental human rights, or how the institutionalized attitudes that discriminate against women would impact her in such a way that it would amount to persecution. It is worth noting in this regard that she was able, without male support, to turn to the police in Egypt. She also managed to change her husband’s position regarding his own family and the physical integrity of their daughter. These are positive indicators of the claimant’s ability to function as a woman in Egyptian society, even when going against the tide. The panel finds the claimant, as a female, faces discrimination and not persecution in Egypt.

RESIDUAL CLAIM OF DAUGHTER

[34]     The panel finds that the evidence pertaining to the daughter on the possibility of sexual harassment and/or discrimination amounting to persecution in Egypt is quite different from her mother’s. The daughter did not testify. As a result, there are no credibility problems stemming from her testimony. As she is a minor, there is no requirement for her to demonstrate subjective fear. The weakness of the advocacy of her claim by her Designated Representative should not count against her. The life choices of the mother in regard to her own allegations of sexual harassment amounting to persecution should not count against her daughter. The panel has considered that, as a minor, the proper approach is to assess her evidence from a child-centered perspective. The panel is mindful that what does not amount to persecution for an adult may well constitute persecution for a minor. The panel appreciates that “children have distinct rights, are in need of special protection, and can be persecuted in ways that would not amount to persecution of an adult”. “Physical violence and the sexual harassment of women remains widespread in Egypt, despite harassment being made a criminal offence in June 2014.”12 The daughter is XXXX years old. She is young enough for a return to Egypt to impact on her development. When one looks at the objective basis for the daughter’s residual claim of discrimination amounting to persecution resulting from cumulative sexual harassment of females in Egypt, the panel finds that her case is made out. The objective country conditions evidence describe wide-ranging, country-wide sexual harassment of women.13 “Sexual harassment and violence in public places is an ongoing problem for women in Egypt”.14 As a XXXX-year old female having reached puberty, the daughter would be impacted by this state of affairs. Given her young age, it is reasonable to conclude that, in her case, it would reach the threshold of persecution. In the specific case of the daughter when faced with this, there is no state protection as “[t]here do not appear to be any mechanisms in place to ensure implementation of the legal framework relevant to sexual harassment”.15 There is no available IFA. The daughter therefore faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt.

[35]     Turning to the son, his claim has not been established and fails for this reason. The residual claim of risk of organ harvesting to children is not covered by s. 96 or s. 97 of IRPA. It is an opportunistic crime, which exists as a generalized risk for large segments of the Egyptian population. There is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that the risk of this happening to the son is higher or different than for large segments of the population, or that it is a risk to children because they are children.

CONCLUSION

[36]     Having considered all of the evidence, the panel determines that there is not a serious possibility that the principal claimant or her son would be persecuted in their country of nationality for any of the five grounds enumerated in the Refugee Convention. The panel also finds that the claimants are not persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1) of the IRPA.

[37]     The principal claimant and her son have an IFA.

[38]     The panel concludes that the principal claimant and her son are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the panel therefore rejects their claims.

[39]     Having considered all of the evidence, the panel determines that there is a serious possibility that the daughter would be persecuted in her country of nationality for one of the five grounds enumerated in the Refugee Convention. She does not have an IFA. The panel concludes that the daughter is a Convention refugee. The panel accepts her claim.

(signed)           MIRYAM MOLGAT

April 11, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

2 Exhibit 2.

3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, November 1996.

4 Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues: Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, September 30, 1996.

5 Exhibit 1.

6 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). [1980] 2 F.C. 302, 31 N.R. 34 (C.A.).

7 Shahamati, Hasan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A., no. A-388-92), Pratte, Hugessen, McDonald, March 24, 1994.

8 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28 Too Many. April 2017. Note: Subsequent to the hearing, the National Documentation Package on Egypt was updated March 29, 2019. It contains no material differences with the version in use at the time of the hearing.

9 Exhibit 4, pages 1-56.

10 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28 Too Many. April 2017.

11 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28 Too Many. April 2017.

12 Kim v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 149, [2011] 2 FCR 448.

13 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28

Too Many. April 2017. Also see Sections 2 and 5 of NDP, Egypt, 29 March 2019.

14 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28 Too Many. April 2017.

15 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.2: Egypt. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2014. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.1: Treatment of women who do not conform to Muslim practices and traditions, including wearing a veil (head covering), in rural and urban areas; state protection available to victims of mistreatment (June 2013-November 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 November 2014. EGY105005.E.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 201

Citation: 2019 RLLR 201
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 17, 2019
Panel: Kari Schroeder
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jonathon W. Jurmain
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06140
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-02524, VB9-02525, VB9-02526, VB9-02527
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002362-002367

Reasons for Decision

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the principal claimant; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the associate claimant; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the minor claimants.

[2]       The claimants are citizens of Egypt who claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       In rendering my decision I have applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines to this claim.

[4]       The claimants are a family of five. The principal claimant is the father. The associate claimant is his wife and the minor claimants are their three daughters.

[5]       The principal and associate claimant began living in Kuwait in 2003. They lived in Kuwait without issue until 2016, returning to Egypt periodically to visit family and friends. During those visits, the principal claimant’s family would continually exert pressure on the claimant to have female circumcision or FGM performed on their daughters.

[6]       The claimants managed to delay the procedure and put off the family; however, in 2016 the principal claimant’s mother and elder brother told the claimants that the procedure would be performed during their next visit. For this reason the claimants stopped visiting the family and only visited the associate claimant’s family during their visit in 2016 and 2018.

[7]       While living in Kuwait, the principal claimant began to express his dissatisfaction with the Egyptian government and President Sisi. He would meet with friends in cafes and restaurants to discuss his views and also made anti-government posts on social media.

[8]       In a return trip to Egypt in XXXX 2016, he was stopped at the airport and interrogated for two hours about his opinions and social media comments. During his time in Egypt he was visited by authorities on other occasions. He managed to leave the country without issue with the help of a friend at the airport.

[9]       The family returned to Egypt in 2018. The principal claimant’s brother found out they were in the country and called the claimant, insisting that the procedure would be done. The claimant agreed as a way to hold off the family but fled the country instead. The remaining claimants joined him in Canada at a later date.

[10]     The claimant’s brother has sent several recent text messages to the principal claimant through WhatsApp telling him that the procedure must be performed.

[11]     The claimants fear that FGM will be forcefully performed on their daughters if they return. They both adamantly oppose the procedure. The principal claimant also continues to post on social media and fears he will be detained by authorities if he returns.

[12]     I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act for the reasons that follow.

[13]     The claimants’ identities today have been established through the certified copies of their passports that I have on file.

[14]     In terms of credibility, there is a presumption of truth applied to all refugee claimants unless there is a reason to doubt their allegation testimony. In this case, the testimony of the claimants raised no significant credibility concerns. There were no material inconsistencies between the claimants’ testimonies and the documentary evidence or their BOC narrative and both claimants testified in a genuine and straightforward manner and there were no hesitations in their responses.

[15]     I do think the principal claimant was speculating with respect to whether his name is on a wanted list; however, I find that this does not detract from my overall assessment of their credibility.

[16]     I find that their allegations are largely consistent with the country condition evidence described below.

[17]     Their testimony has also been sufficiently supported by documentary evidence, including copies of the messages from the principal claimant’s brother as well as social media posts made by the claimant since arriving in Canada.

[18]     I do not have copies of the posts he made in Kuwait prior to 2016 but I accept that this could have been potentially an oversight and, in any event, I do not draw a negative inference given the reliability of the testimony and the other evidence before me.

[19]     I find that the claimants are reliable witnesses who genuinely fear returning to Egypt for the reasons they’ve given. Based on the nature of their fears, these allegations have links to the Convention refugee grounds of political opinion and also membership in particular social group regarding the minor claimants who are female and face gender-related violence, while their parents are members of a particular group, namely close family members of those daughters.

[20]     Having accepted their allegations, I must determine whether their fear is objectively well- founded and in this case I do find that the country documentation establishes the objective risk to the claimants.

[21]     The objective evidence before me supports the claimants’ allegations. Egypt has an extremely poor human rights record. According to Amnesty International, authorities use torture and other ill-treatment and enforce disappearance against hundreds of people. The crackdown on civil society escalated with non-governmental organization staff being subject to additional interrogation and travel bans.

[22]     Arbitrary arrests and detentions followed by grossly unfair trials of government critics, youthful protestors, journalists and human rights defenders were routine.

[23]     With respect to the social media activity of the principal claimant, I have a report before me, and this is 11.2 of the NDP, Freedom on the Net report, which states that internet freedom has been declining dramatically. The government has blocked dozens of critical new sites. Security forces have detained individuals for criticizing the government and mocking the president on social media.

[24]     For example, a human rights lawyer was given a ten year sentence for a Facebook page that allegedly incited terrorism which is a term that is being used and applied to non-violent criticism of the government. Others have been arrested or sentenced for having Facebook pages that express legitimate opposition to their polices.

[25]     This is also confirmed by document 2.1 which is the United States Department of State report which indicates that the government continually restricts and obstructs access to the internet and censors online content. There were credible reports that the government monitored private online communication without appropriate legal authority. Individuals were prosecuted and accused of posting insulting material.

[26]     The evidence before me also corroborates the claimants’ fear of female circumcision for their daughters. The documentation shows that FGM exists in a high proportion of the female population of Egypt. According to document 2.1, FGM is illegal but remains a serious problem. 70% of girls between ages 15 and 19 have undergone FGM. According to international and local observers the government did not effectively enforce the FGM law.

[27]     According to item 5.7 of the National Documentation Package the number is 87% among all women aged 15 to 49 have undergone FGM and this is in a population of approximately 95 million people which the report suggests make Egypt the country with the greatest number of women and girls who have experienced FGM of any country in the world.

[28]     The practice is deeply entrenched in society with more than half the population believing the practice should continue.

[29]     Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I find that that the claimants have established with sufficient, reliable evidence that they would face a serious possibility of persecution if they return to Egypt.

[30]     In terms of state protection, as the state is the agent of harm in this case with respect to the persecution of individuals expressing anti-government views, and further that despite the changes in the government’s approach to FGM, the state is often ineffective in implementing the law in practice, I find that state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimants in this case.

[31]     With respect to an internal flight alternative, the persecution of individuals expressing anti-government views occurs throughout the country. Similarly, with respect to any internal flight alternative that would address the fear of FGM, the evidence before is that the principal claimant’s family has known through other family members and neighbours when the claimants return to Egypt and remained in Cairo. This is the internal flight alternative that I initially proposed to the claimant; however, based on the evidence, I find that the claimants would still face a serious possibility of persecution if they relocated to Cairo as the family would locate them and continue exerting pressure to have the procedure performed.

 Conclusion

[32]     I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.

 — PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 195

Citation: 2019 RLLR 195
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 27, 2019
Panel: Ludmila Pergat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Razgar Hasan
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB7-09759
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-09787
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001563-001571

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a XXXX-year-old female and a national of Egypt.

[2]       Her sister, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-years old, was born in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Her parents returned to Egypt the following year. Children of foreigners born in Dubai don’t have the rights of local citizenship and automatically assume the nationality of the father. Foreign children are automatically considered nationals; however, they must renounce the citizenship of their parents, who are Egyptian. The UAE does not permit dual nationality.

[3]       Given that XXXX has not renounced her Egyptian citizenship, she is an Egyptian national.

[4]       Both Claimants allege to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds being members of a particular social group, that of women.

IDENTITY

[5]       The Claimant’s identities were established by a copy of their Egyptian passports submitted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). Based on the passports provided by CIC and the written testimony of the Claimants, in the narrative of their BOC, the Tribunal is satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the Claimants have established their identities.

DETERMINATION

[6]       The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) determines that the Claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are “Convention refugees” as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and “persons in need of protection” as defined in section 97(1)[8] of that law.

ALLEGATIONS

[7]       The principal Claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, makes the following allegations in the narrative of her Basis of Claim Form (BOC).

[8]       Her grandfather was an Imam of the Mosque in Alexandria. Her father is a very conservative Muslim man. He is a project manager and makes a good living. The principal Claimant attended a private school in the UAE since 2007. The family moved to the UAE with them. Her father is very strict, made her wear a hijab since she was twelve and made her memorize the Quran. The Claimant came to Canada in 2016 to attend University to study engineering, which she did not want to do, nor was she successful in the studies, but did so to stay away from her domineering father.

[9]       The Claimant visited Egypt in XXXX 2015 when their maternal grandmother passed away. During that visit she was sexually assaulted on the street. She said that someone put his hand on her breast and exposed himself to her. She did not go to the police. She returned to Canada with her mother and sister.

[10]     The principal Claimant has been seen by a XXXX since then, and suffers from several disorders such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She is being treated with several medications and is seeing a XXXX at Carleton University which she presently attends. At present her education is being paid for by her older brother since her father stopped paying all expenses when she stopped studying Engineering. Her father wanted her to return to Egypt for one month. She learned from close relatives and friends that he intends to force her to marry her cousin. The principal Claimant told her father that she refuses to return to Egypt. Her father was furious and said that he would cut her off financially, which he did in 2017. He also said that he would do anything in his power to have her return to Egypt.

[11]     The principal Claimant fears returning to Egypt. She would have to live with her father and marry her cousin, in the marriage arranged by her father.

[12]     The Claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal Claimant’s younger sister, testified that she will be harmed by her father and his family because she stands by her sister. Her younger years mirror that of her sister where it concerns her father, his expectations of his daughters and rigid upbringing. She was also assaulted, in her case, by a taxi driver when she returned for her grandmother’s funeral. Since her coming to Canada to study, after her visit to Egypt for her grandmother’s funeral, her father has tried to have her convince her sister, the principal Claimant, to return to Egypt. When she refused, he became very angry and told her that he would no longer support the younger Claimant financially. He told the younger sister that he learned from his friends that she has registered to study psychology instead of engineering, removed her hijab and smoked cigarettes. He insisted that they return to Egypt.

[13]     Both Claimants are being followed by a XXXX for their issues arising from past abuses by their father and the pressures to conform to his strict expectations.

[14]     Both Claimants feared returning to Egypt to their father. They knew that they would face arranged marriages, be locked in his home and made to wear the hijab again.

[15]     They claimed refugee protection in Canada in August 2017.

ANALYSIS

[16]     In analyzing this claim, the Tribunal considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines for Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender Related Persecution. The Tribunal is cognizant that female refugee claimants may have difficulties in demonstrating that their claims are credible. As such, the Tribunal has considered and applied these guidelines during the hearing, as well as in assessing the weight given to both the oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal.

[17]     The testimony of both Claimants’ was very difficult and emotional, however, spontaneous and straightforward. The principal Claimant’s highly emotional state was supported by medical reports submitted by her family physician1 and her XXXX.2 The XXXX report3 states that the Claimant suffers from both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Her sister is severely affected by her older sister’s (principal Claimant) fragile state.

[18]     The Tribunal took into account the Claimants’ conditions medical and fragile conditions during the hearing, applying the principles of the Chairperson’s Guidelines for women refugee claimants. The Tribunal did consider that both Claimants are educated young women and have lived away from their father for many years. However, in this particular case, the Tribunal believes that the strict upbringing that they had from a very conservative father, who supported them financially all their lives, caused serious and permanent fear of being forced to live a life that they did not experience in the past few years living as Western women, able to make their own choices and decisions. They are Muslim women and embrace their faith but fear the life of a Muslim woman in an ultra-Muslim society in Egypt.

[19]     The central element of this claim is whether the two Claimants had their human rights violated by their father. Is there is serious possibility that their basic human rights will be violated by their father and/or other relatives should they return to Egypt?

[20]     The Tribunal believes that, based on the Claimants’ narratives in their BOCs and their testimony at the hearing, the Claimants face not only a serious possibility but the probability of having these rights violated.

[21]     XXXX father has already arranged a marriage for her with her cousin, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Tribunal believes that the principal Claimant would have no option but to marry her cousin should she return to Egypt. The Claimant has spent all of her life in school studying. She has lived a life of never having to work or think about supporting herself. Consequently, given that her father has cut off her financial support, if she were to return to Egypt, she would have to return to her father and be forced into the marriage with her cousin.

[22]     The expectation of their father was that they get the best education that he can afford and that they return to Egypt to marriages arranged by him.

[23]     In Vidhani v. M.C.I.,4 the Court held that “women who are forced into marriages against their will have had a basic human right violated.”

[24]     The Tribunal believes that in this particular case and under these particular circumstances, the Claimant’s basic human rights are being and will further be violated.

[25]     Based on the younger Claimant’s narrative in her BOC and her testimony at the hearing, the Tribunal believes that she will also have her basic human rights violated by being forced into an arranged marriage by her father.

[26]     The Tribunal also believes that both Claimants were sexually assaulted when they returned to Egypt for their grandmother’s funeral in 2015 and that experience left them terrified of returning to Egypt.

[27]     Considering that the evidence submitted in the BOC form is deemed true as sworn evidence and is not contradicted by any other evidence submitted in this case, in the Tribunal’s view, the Claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, the credibility of their allegations as well as the existence of a subjective fear.

State Protection

[28]     Egypt was considered in 2014 by more than 300 gender experts to be “the worst country in the Arab world to be a woman”5 and there is no evidence to the effect that the situation has in any way improved since.

[29]     Violence against women is reported as being socially legitimized, it is surrounded by a culture of silence, largely imposed by the family. Moreover, according to Amnesty International, Egyptian law does not provide the victims with adequate protection. Protection mechanisms are very few and are considered to be essentially ineffective. This is in part due to the existence of provisions within the Penal Code that excuse acts of violence that have been committed in good faith in accordance with Sharia Law; the requirements imposed on individual victims of assault to have to produce multiple witnesses – a very difficult condition to meet for women victims of violence given the societal attitude toward women and violence; and the reported often dismissive or abusive attitude of officials who receive the complaints.

[30]     In that context, given also the reported reluctance of women to report violence because of shame, fear of retaliation against them and their children and community pressure, violence against women virtually goes unpunished allowing the offenders to act in almost total impunity.6

[31]     Violence, including sexual and domestic violence, against women is universal and irrelevant when determining whether rape and other gender-specific crimes constitute forms of persecution. The real issues are whether the violence, experienced or feared, is a serious violation of a fundamental human right for a Convention ground and in what circumstances can the risk of that violence be said to result from a failure of State protection.

[32]     Based on the declarations of the Claimants, the Tribunal is of the opinion, that they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an objective basis to their claims and that there is clear and convincing evidence that the state of Egypt is unable and unwilling to protect them for the following reasons.

[33]     The Claimants are perceived, based on their actions, to oppose Islam. They are two young women who have spent most of their young lives and all of their adult lives pursuing an education in Dubia, UAE, and Canada. They have gone against the strict rules by which Muslim women in Egypt must abide and what their father believes in and insists upon. They put aside their core traditions such the wearing of the hijab and adopted western accepted practices such as smoking, which are against the Muslim values. These actions subjected them not only to their father’s wrath, their relatives and friends but also to the religious faction and government that perceives them as infidels and will not protect them.

[34]     The Tribunal believes that in this particular case, under these particular circumstances, the Claimants have established that they will not be safe anywhere Egypt.

[35]     In light of all of the above, the Tribunal finds that the Claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an objective basis to their claims. The Tribunal further finds that the Claimants have rebutted the presumption of State protection; they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is both unable and unwilling to protect them.

Internal Flight Alternative

[36]     The Tribunal finds that there is no relevant Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Egypt for individuals such as the Claimants.

[37]     As single women with no means of financial support and no man to protect them, they would be targeted by those who adhere faithfully to the Muslim belief and would condemn them for being infidels. As they testified, they would be seen as prostitutes and could be the victims of honour killings. The Tribunal’s conclusion is based on the fact that the risk of persecution emanates not only from their father and his extended family in Egypt but also from State agents, notably the clerics and religious police. That State authority extends to the whole country.

[38]     The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Claimants would be at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution in all parts of the country.

CONCLUSION

[39]     After having considered both oral and written testimony submitted, the Tribunal believes that the Claimants have discharged their burden of proof.

[40]     Based upon the above analysis, the Tribunal determines that principal Claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand her sister XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are “Convention refugees”, as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and “persons in need of protection” as defined in section 97(1)[8] of that law.

 (signed)          LUDMILA PERGAT

March 27, 2019

1 Document 4, item C-10.

2 Document 4, item C-11.

3 Ibid, note 2.

4 Vidhani v. M.C.I., [1995] 3 F.C. 60 (T.D.).

5  Document 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (30 June 2017), item 5.1.

6 Document 3, NDP for Egypt (30 June 2017), item 5.6.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 180

Citation: 2019 RLLR 180
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 29, 2019
Panel: Harvey Savage
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Raphael Vagliano
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-25609
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000705-000708

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]     These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]     In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]     You allege the following: You allege that your husband belongs to a tribe in Egypt that conducts Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) on female children and female adults. Your husband’s family has notified you that they wish to perform FGM on yourself and on your children when they reach four years of age. Your husband has told you that his family and tribe is very strong and that he is unable to prevent them from carrying this out. You also fear that as a politically liberal woman who has criticized the government in social media, you would face serious harm upon returning to Egypt. Just before you fled Egypt you insulted a military person seeking your husband and considered yourself fortunate that your name was not on a watch list as you exited the country.

DETERMINATION

[4]     I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a serious possibility of persecution should you return to Egypt based on the grounds in section 96.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]     I find that your identity as a national of Egypt is established by the documents provided: Passport.

Credibility

[6]     Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above. Your husband’s letter that he is unable to oppose the strong pressure of his family and tribe to perform FGM on yourself and your daughters, and the letter from your wife’s sister, from the same tribe, who underwent FGM. After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

[7]     Based on the credibility of your allegations, and the documentary evidence set out below, I find that you have established a future risk that you will be subjected to the following harm: FGM complicated by your political history of dissent.

[8]     The fact that you face this risk is corroborated by the following documents: National Documentation Package for Egypt—June 29, 2018, items 2.1, 4.3, 5.7, 5.6 and 5.7.

Risk of harm

[9]     This harm clearly amounts persecution.

State protection

[l0]    I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. The documentary evidence above cited demonstrates that police protection against FGM is often inadequate and inconsistent.

Internal flight alternative

[11]   I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. I find that there are no other parts of the country, where you would not face a risk to your life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. I considered that your husband’s tribe is strong and influential, that he is unable to prevent them from conducting this FGM ritual on you, and further that as a person who has demonstrated open dissent to the government, that there is no safe internal flight alternative for you in Egypt.

[12]   On the evidence before me, I find that it is not objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to you, for you to seek refuge in Egypt for the same reasons listed above.

CONCLUSION

[13]   Based on the analysis above, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee. Accordingly, I accept your claim.

(signed)      HARVEY SAVAGE

March 29, 2019

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 176

Citation: 2019 RLLR 176
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 20, 2019
Panel: Kenneth D. Maclean
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Deanna Karbasion
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-05242
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000625-000633

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]     The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, seeks refugee protection under section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1

[2]     The claimant’s allegations are set out most fully in her BOC and accompanying narrative statement which are summarized below.2

ALLEGATIONS

[3]     The claimant was born in XXXX 1965 in what was then considered the Jordanian annexed West Bank.

[4]     She has a university education – a XXXX XXXX XXXX. She married her first husband in 1988, and with him had four children born in 1989, 1992, 1997 and 2002. All the claimant’s children reside in Canada. The claimant was divorced from her first husband in 2006. The claimant alleges that upon divorce, her married surname ‘XXXX reverted to her maiden surname ‘XXXX.’

[5]     Following her divorce, the claimant met XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX living in Cairo, Egypt, on the internet through Yahoo Messenger. After communicating on a frequent basis, XXXX convinced her to relocate to Egypt with her children, which she did in XXXX 2006. The claimant established herself in Cairo and her children entered school. The claimant’s eldest daughter had left home several years earlier, and eventually made her way to Canada via marriage. Over time, her remaining three children left for Canada under the sponsorship of their father, who had immigrated here in 2007. The claimant’s last child immigrated to Canada in XXXX 2017.

[6]     The claimants married XXXX in August 2007, and she became an Egyptian citizen by marriage. The couple lived together sharing responsibilities and the claimant worked to have her professional qualifications recognized by the Egyptian Syndicate of Engineering Association. Successful in this endeavour, the claimant found work with a Cairo firm from January 2010 until March 2017.

[7]     In March 2017, the claimant’s marriage to XXXX collapsed suddenly when she discovered that he was engaging in a same-sex relationship with a childhood friend XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX). The claimant immediately left home, and with her youngest son found rental accommodations elsewhere. The claimant made security arrangements with her new landlord.

[8]     The claimant almost immediately filed for divorce, which was granted on March 16, 2017. On April 1, 2017, the claimant started a new job with another firm in Cairo, which she had applied for prior to the collapse of her marriage. From March to December 2017, XXXX periodically telephoned the claimant seeking a solution to the questions he was receiving from family and friends about why his apparently stable marriage collapsed and was over so fast. XXXX went so far as asking the claimant to visit his parents, who she alleges were fond of her, to stop them from asking questions of him. The claimant declined the suggestion, which led to XXXX become more aggressive in his demands of her, going so far as suggesting that she accept the blame for the divorce. The claimant alleges that XXXX threatened to plant drugs on her and call the police if she did not cooperate. The claimant refused to accede to XXXX continuing demands.

[9]     The claimant alleges that because of societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships both XXXX and XXXX were at serious risk of social stigmatization, loss of employment or harm, even death, if their relationship was found out. She alleges that XXXX needed her not to tell anyone about his relationship with XXXX, a commitment she alleges she had given him at the time of the divorce. Fearing escalation of XXXX behavior, the claimant confided in her older children, who advised her to leave Egypt and with their help they explored exit options.

[10]   The claimant alleges that she could not return to Palestine, to which she had not returned since her departure in 2006. She alleges that she would need the permission of the Israelis in order to re-enter the West Bank, and suggests that the Israelis would be suspicious of her motives for returning after such a long absence. She claims that because of her family’s history with the Israelis, she was at risk of detention upon return.

[11]   Furthermore, the claimant alleges that she could not come to Canada directly, as she had been denied visitor visas twice in 2016, and once at the beginning of 2017. The claimant applied for a United States (US) visitor visa in November 2017, which was received on January 25, 2018.

[12]   The claimant alleges that her feared escalated in January 2018, when in the middle of the month, she was approached in front of her place of employment by two thugs who told her that she should return XXXX telephone calls and do what he said. On January 31, 2018 she was again approached while on the way to work by the two previous thugs and a third who carried a knife. She alleges that she was threatened with an acid attack, being disappeared, or killed. After this second incident that claimant did not go to the police to file a report.

[13]   After making the arrangements to leave, the claimant departed Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 flying to Buffalo via New York City, and from thence to the US/Canada boarder, where she made her claim for refugee protection the following day.

DETERMINATION

[14]   I find that the claimant is a person in need of protection. I accept her claim. 

ANALYSIS

Identity

[15]   On the basis of the claimant’s testimony and certified true copy of her Egyptian passport,3 I am satisfied that the claimant is a citizen of Egypt. Canada does not recognize the state of Palestine, and accordingly, for the purposes of this matter, the claimant cannot be considered a citizen of the Palestinian Authority, and as such her identity as such is irrelevant.

Credibility and Subjective Fear

[16]   In reaching my decision, I am guided by the IRB Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.4

[17]   I find the claimant to be credible. By her testimony and documentary disclosure, I find that she has established the core elements of her claim – that she is at risk of harm at the hands of XXXX. The claimant declared that the information provided in her BOCs is complete, true, and correct. The claimant’s evidence is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible, or contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Egypt. In particular, I do not draw a negative inference on the claimant’s failure to make an asylum claims in the US, and accept her explanation for her failure to do so. Simply put, having been denied Temporary Resident Visas for Canada, and in consideration that her entire family resides in Canada, the claimant sought an alternative means of coming here to reach safety.

[18]   In assessing the claimant’s credibility, I reviewed her BOC,5 port of entry (POE) intake forms,6 and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel, which included copies of: documents pertaining to her Egyptian marriage and divorce, her Egyptian Identity Card, education documents, Egyptian and Jordanian professional certification documents.7

State Protection

[19]   This case is different than a domestic violence case, as the direct threat against the claimant occurred after she had divorced her husband and outside the context of the marriage. She is not threatened by XXXX because she is a woman per se but rather because she knows something which if revealed would place XXXX and his companion at considerable risk of harm themselves. Presumably, the threat from XXXX would be just the same if the claimant were a man who had knowledge of his sexual activities. That being said, it was in the context of the marriage that the demands were first made on XXXX to accept the blame for the failure of the marriage demands that continued after the divorce, and which then turned into direct threats of violence at the hands of third parties.

[20]   What turns this into a gender-based issue related to domestic violence is that the Egyptian authorities regard the threat against the claimant in the context of a family matter. It is the claimant’s evidence that when she had previously approached the police of a matter of sexual harassment against her daughter, they had told her to deal with things from within the family.8 Thus, it was from the perspective that the threats made against her by her ex-husband would not be taken seriously, because she was a woman, that she did not seek the protection of the state.

[21]   The documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, in respect of the police response to domestic violence and violence against women in general, would tend to bare out the claimant’s concern. A report by the United Kingdom (UK) Home Office, in respect of the response of the police and courts in Egypt to violence against women, relates that:

‘Civil society organizations reported police pressure not to pursue charges and fear of societal reprisal actively discouraged women from going to police stations to report crimes, resulting in a very small number of cases being investigated or effectively prosecuted. NGOs estimated the prevalence of rape was several times higher than the rate reported by the government.’9

[22]   The Home Office document further relates that:

‘ …currently very few women go ahead with legal complaints against their attackers or report attacks to the police. The problems of social stigma and lack of trust in the security forces mean that sexual violence in particular is unlikely to be reported to the police, including to the new Violence Against Women (VAW) unit. According to a 2013 study, 93.4 per cent of respondent survivors of sexual harassment said they did not request help from security forces at the scene of the incident. The most common reasons cited by survivors included: “I feared for my reputation”, “I thought there was no text in the law to penalize harassment”, and “I was also scared from harassment by policemen.”10

[23]   Other information in the NDP for Egypt reveals that violence against women is reported as being socially legitimized, it is surrounded by a culture of silence, largely imposed by the family. Moreover, according to Amnesty International, Egyptian law does not provide the victims with adequate protection.11 Protection mechanisms are very few, and are considered to be essentially ineffective. This is, in part, due to the existence of provisions within the Penal Code that excuse acts of violence that have been committed in good faith in accordance with Sharia Law; the requirements imposed on individual victims of assault to have to produce multiple witnesses. This is a very difficult condition to meet for female victims of violence, given the societal attitude toward women and violence, and the reported often dismissive or abusive attitude of officials who receive the complaints.

[24]   In that context, given also the reported reluctance of women to report violence because of shame, fear of retaliation against them and their children, and community pressure, violence against women virtually goes unpunished, allowing the offenders to act in almost total impunity. An Amnesty International Report from January 2015 relates that:

The inadequate and discriminatory legal and policy framework, coupled with the Egyptian authorities’ failure to punish or address the underlying causes of violence against women and girls, has resulted in a culture of impunity in which sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls is pervasive. Such violence affects all aspects of their lives, in the family and the public sphere.12

[25]   Thus, there is a credible basis for the claimant’s reluctance to seek state protection, and I find that, in these particular circumstances, it would not be forthcoming.

Internal flight alternative

[26]   The claimant cannot live safely in Egypt. I asked the claimant why she could not go to live in Alexandria and be safe. She testified that she could not be safe anywhere in Egypt because she was a divorced woman, a Palestinian, and because XXXX had the means and resources to find her. The claimant’s evidence is that after she had left XXXX, she sought out a new job, and that after having started at this new job she witnessed XXXX sitting in his automobile watching her as she left her place of employment. She testified that XXXX, who has connections with Egyptian immigration authorities in the context of his job as a travel agent, would know if and when she returned to Egypt.

[27]   I consider that, even now, the claimant continue to pose a threat to XXXX in that it is available to her to inform on him. He has demonstrated his intention in the past, and it is reasonable to assume that he remains highly motivated to prevent his secret from becoming public. Therefore, it is more likely than not, that if she returned to Egypt, he would try to silence her as a way of preserving his own safety.

[28]   I also consider that as a divorced woman, with no immediate means of financial support, and no man to protect her, the claimant would be targeted by those who adhere faithfully to the Islamic beliefs in respect of women and their societal role. The claimant is demonstrably westernized; she dresses as a Westerner, does not wear the veil, and as an engineer she has lived and worked outside the usual social norms that constrain many women in Arab countries. I have considered the Response to Information Request (RIR) entitled Egypt: Treatment of women who do not conform to Muslim practices and traditions, including wearing a veil (head covering), in rural and urban areas; state protection available to victims of mistreatment,13 and find that my conclusion with respect to the societal treatment of women in Egypt are justified.

[29]   Thus, whether in respect of the threat posed by XXXX, or the threat posed by Egyptian society, I find that the claimant would be at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution in all parts of the country.

CONCLUSION

[30]   While this case does not fit squarely as a domestic violence claim, it originated from within the context of a marriage, and the agent of harm is the claimant’s ex-husband. Consequently, I have analyzed the risk faced by the claimant from the perspective of domestic violence, but more broadly as violence against women in Egypt in general.

[31]   I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a strong basis for the claimant’s subjective fear of harm, and that the objective evidence supports a conclusion that her fears are well-founded, that state protection would not be forthcoming, and that, in her particular circumstances, she has no safe place to live in Egypt.

[32]   I therefore find that she is a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1)(b) of IRPA, and I accept her claim.

(signed)               KENNETH D. MACLEAN

August 20, 2019

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

2  Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form.

3  Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport.

4 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(l)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

5 Exhibit 2, BOC.

6 Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/CIC.

7  Exhibit 5, Identity Documents received January 9, 2019, at pp. 28-76.

8 Exhibit 6, Claim Documents received January 9, 2019, at p. 36.

9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.4.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., item 2.2.

12 Ibid., item 5.6.

13 Ibid., item 5.1.