Tag: Religion

Citation: 2019 RLLR 203
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 15, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-01027
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002797-002801

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a citizen of Egypt who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).¹ The claimant’s identity has been established by a copy of her passport.²

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant fears return to Egypt because she fears religious persecution by Muslim extremists. The claimant is a Christian. The claimant received threats by Muslim extremists calling her “infidel” and “enemy of Allah” because she was hosting Bible studies in her home for women. The claimant also faced harassment because she refuses to wear a hijab, including being pushed to the ground. The claimant left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 and arrived in Canada on the same day. Further details are highlighted in her Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.³ The claimant signed her BOC on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.⁴ The panel has reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution⁵ in this decision.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[3]       The claimant provided a detailed narrative and documents supporting her Christian religion.⁶ The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fear of religious persecution by Muslim extremists in Egypt. The evidence indicates that there has been an increase in sectarian violence against Christians.⁷ The evidence indicates that there have been violent attacks against Christians by Muslim extremists throughout Egypt including in Cairo and in Alexandria.⁸ The panel finds that the claimant has established a nexus to religion because of her Christian faith and that she would face more than a mere possibility of persecution if she returns to Egypt.

State Protection

[4]       The objective evidence indicates the following regarding state protection in Egypt:

The government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere in government. In most cases the government did not comprehensively investigate human rights abuses, including most incidents of violence by security forces, contributing to an environment of impunity.⁹

[5]       A Human Rights Watch report dated March 13, 2017 indicates that Christians who have been targeted by Muslim extremists report that Egyptian security forces are “apathetic” in their response to assist Christians.¹⁰ Further reports indicate that:

The authorities continued to violate the right to freedom of religion by discriminating against Christians. In August, security forces prevented dozens of Coptic Christians from praying in a house in Alforn village in Minya governorate, citing reasons of security. There was continued impunity for sectarian attacks on Christian communities, and the authorities continued to rely on customary reconciliation and settlements agreed by local authorities and religious leaders. Amid this impunity, violence by non-state actors against Christians increased significantly.¹¹

[6]       The general security context in Egypt is uncertain at this time:

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who first took power in a July 2013 coup, continues to govern Egypt in an authoritarian manner, though the election of a new parliament in late 2015 ended a period of rule by executive decree. Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Terrorism persists unabated in the Sinai Peninsula and has also struck the Egyptian mainland, despite the government’s use of aggressive and often abusive tactics to combat it.¹²

[7]       Further evidence provides a general overview of the fragility of the current regime and lack of operationally effective state protection in Egypt:

In the first several months of 2017, Egypt has witnessed a number of events that have challenged the country’s stability and security, economic development, and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The Egyptian government has continued its repercussion of public space, even going so far as to physically close the offices of the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and Torture in early February. The country is no more stable, with terror groups and the Egyptian state engaged in a war of propaganda narratives. The Islamic State’s affiliate in mainland Egypt has targeted churches on Palm Sunday and announced its ”emir” in Islamic State media. The Islamic State’s Wilayat Sinai also is increasingly targeting the Christian population as it continues to claim control over urban areas in North Sinai even as Egypt’s army and tribal militias commit violence against unarmed residents of Sinai. A year ahead of scheduled elections, human rights lawyer and rumored presidential candidate Khaled Ali has been detained by security forces and smeared in pro-regime media as fomenting dissent.¹³

[8]       Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimant in Egypt at this time.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[9]       In Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Court of Appeal held that, with respect to the burden of proof, once the issue of an internal flight alternative was raised, the onus is on the claimant to show that she does not have an IFA.¹⁴ The burden placed on a claimant is fairly high in order to show that the IFA is unreasonable. In the Federal Court of Appeal decision of Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) in 2001, it was stated that the test is to show that the IFA is unreasonable.¹⁵ That test requires nothing less than the existence of conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimants in relocating to a safe area. Actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions is required. The panel must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that (1) the claimant would not be subject personally to a danger of torture, or to a risk of life or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment or face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA and (2) that conditions in that part of the country are such that it would be objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there.

[10]     The objective evidence provides examples of targeting of Christians with impunity in Cairo and Alexandria. For example, in December 2016, an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)­ affiliated suicide bomber killed 29 people in an attack against a Christian church, Saints Peter and Paul Church in Cairo.¹⁶ Reports of bombings at Christian churches also occurred in Alexandria in April 2017 during Palm Sunday at St. Mark’s Cathedral.¹⁷ The same report indicates that “Muslims opposed to church construction or renovation, even when legally authorized, continued to commit violence against churches and Christian-owned properties in various locales.”¹⁸ Given the general insecurity in Egypt and the successful violent attacks against Christians in Cairo and Alexandria by Muslim extremists, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant in her particular circumstances as she would not be free to worship or practice her Christian faith without fear of violent attacks perpetrated with impunity by Muslim extremists.

CONCLUSION

[11]     For the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts her claim.

(signed)           KERRY CUNDAL

January 15, 2019

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

² Exhibit 1.

³ Exhibit 2.

⁴ Exhibit 2.

⁵ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Ottawa, Canada, March 1993, updated November 1996.

⁶ Exhibits 1 and 2.

⁷ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), June 29, 2018, Item 1.7.

⁸ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1.7.

⁹ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

¹⁰ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.5.

¹¹ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.

¹² Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.4.

¹³ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.5.

¹⁴ Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).

¹⁵ Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.).

¹⁶ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

¹⁷ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

¹⁸ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 202
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 27, 2019
Panel: J. Schmalzbauer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ruth Williams
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-00857
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002780-002786

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”) and his spouse, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “associate claimant”), as citizens of Egypt, who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the claimants put forth in the Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.² The claimants fear political persecution due to their religion, as Coptic Christians. The claimants submit that they have since 2011, enduring increasing harassment, discrimination and violence due to their religious identity. The claimants had lived in a city known for its Christian population.

[3]       The claimants were both professionals in XXXX. They had owned and operated a local XXXX. In precipitating their decision to leave Egypt and seek safety for their three children and themselves, the XXXX and the principal claimant was attacked by religious extremists. He was first threatened in the XXXX, then the XXXX was attacked and damaged, and a threatening letter was left, against his children being kidnapped.

[4]       They fled the local area and made their arrangements to leave Egypt and come to Canada and seek protection.

Determination

[5]       The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees, as they do have a well- founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in Egypt.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       The panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities in the claimants’ identities as nationals of Egypt, considering the certified copies of their Egyptian passports.³

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[7]       The duty of this panel is to find if there is sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimants would be persecuted if they returned to Egypt. The claimants submit that they fear persecution due to their faith and identities, as Coptic Christians.

[8]       The claimants testified in a very detailed, genuine and credible manner throughout their testimony. Both were able to reasonably convey their personal and professional circumstance in Egypt. They supported their testimony and allegations by presenting their business documents. They also submitted letters and pictures of support in documenting the events that precipitated their claim in Canada.⁴ The testimony before this panel was detailed and genuine as to their circumstances in Egypt, including the numerous attacks and threats against them and their minor children. Although they had travelled to Canada previously, without making a claim; I am satisfied in their explanation that they had a professional and comfortable life and at the time of previous travels it was less of a risk to continue to live in Egypt, however, their change in circumstances and the threats against them have increased, resulting in them leaving their lives behind and seeking protection. I take no negative inference against not previously seeking protection when in Canada. Overall, I accept the claimant’s allegations as presented.

[9]       The objective evidence reports that approximately 90 percent of Egypt’s population is Sunni Muslim and approximately ten percent is recognized as Christian.⁵ Approximately ten percent of Christians belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church, while other Christian communities constitute less than two percent of the population.

[10]     Egypt’s constitution describes freedom of belief as absolute and it provides adherents of Islam, Christianity and Judaism the right to practice their religion freely.⁶ However, the country condition evidence reports that sectarian attacks against Christians continue, including church bombings committed by the Islamic State (IS), forced displacement, physical assaults, arson attacks and blocking of church construction.⁷ A Response to Information Request (RIR) before me lists numerous and serious attacks committed against Coptic Christians in 2016 and 2017.⁸ There is evidence that high level officials, such as the President, are making efforts to promote religious freedoms. For example, President Sisi has pledged to respect freedom of belief and has made visits to Coptic Christian masses.

[11]     Increased attacks by IS in February 2017 lead to the largest wave of collective displacement in Egypt since the June 1967 war. Furthermore, two bombings in April 2017 led to President Sisi declaring a three-month state of emergency in the country.⁹ Additionally, the United States (U.S.) Department of State Report (DOS) indicates that lethal sectarian violence continued over the year, and included mob violence and vigilantism, for example, in May 2017, there was a terrorist attack on a bus carrying Coptic Christians.¹⁰ However, despite these efforts, there are still reports of secular violence.

[12]     For example, the 2017 U.S. DOS International Religious Freedom Report states that religious minorities continue to face significant threats of sectarian violence.¹¹ The report outlines violence targeted toward Christians specifically because of their religion. Furthermore, authorities fail to protect minority victims and demand that charges be dropped in the spirit of reconciliation.¹² Furthermore, there are numerous reports of Christian churches being targeted as well as the protest of building new churches. There have been cases of churches being burned down and vandalized, as well as Christian homes being similarly targeted.¹³

[13]     The same report states that:

ISIS claimed responsibility for multiple other attacks, including suicide bombings against two churches during Palm Sunday services, attacks against passengers on a bus carrying Christian pilgrims, and a spate of attacks on individual Christians in northern Sinai and elsewhere. An assailant killed a Coptic Orthodox priest in Cairo and injured another; a court sentenced the assailant to death for murder. According to press reports, three noncommissioned officers and a security guard allegedly tortured and killed a Christian police conscript. His family reported in a videotaped interview that he was “tortured and killed for his faith.” …

On April 9, twin suicide bombings at Coptic Orthodox churches killed 45 people during Palm Sunday services. One struck St. Mark’s Cathedral, the seat of the Coptic Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, where Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II was leading the service. The attacker detonated a bomb at the gate of the church compound after being refused entry by security. The other attack occurred in the city of Tanta in the Nile delta, where a suicide bomber detonated himself among the front pews of the church. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks and warned Muslims to avoid Christian gatherings in Egypt. …

Terrorists affiliated with ISIS carried out a series of attacks against Christians in northern Sinai after having issued videos and other public statements calling on pious Muslims to kill them. On January 30, masked assailants shot Coptic Christian Wael Milad in his shop, according to press reports. Eyewitnesses told media outlets that on February 11 an attacker shot Christian veterinarian Bahgat William in the head, neck, and stomach as he was leaving his clinic. Attackers killed Adel Showky on the same day in al-Arish’s Samaran neighborhood, according to press reports. On February 16, two assailants on a motorbike gunned down Coptic Christian schoolteacher Gamal Tawfiq as he was walking through a crowded marketplace between his home and school, according to press reports. On February 22, the corpses of two local Christians, Saad Hanna and his son Medhat, were found on the roadside in al-Arish. Saad’s body showed gunshot wounds; Medhat’s showed signs of having been burned alive, according to press reports. Following these attacks and additional threats, hundreds of Christians fled Sinai during the first several months of the year for other parts of Egypt, according to press and church sources. According to an international NGO, several families told human rights activists they wanted to return to their homes, but were skeptical that this would be possible. Subsequently on May 6, gunmen shot and killed Nabeel Saber Ayoub, a Copt who had fled al-Arish with his family but returned briefly to complete school paperwork for his son and to check on his house and barber shop, according to press reports. Violent attacks against individual Christians were not limited to northern Sinai.¹⁴

[14]     The claimants’ situation, which I accept, is in line with the objective evidence, of targeting of violence, kidnapping and harassment, followed by reconciliation efforts rather than protective efforts by authorities.

[15]     I find that the claimants’ as Coptic Christians would more likely continue to be targeted for their religion and are subject to murders, kidnappings, physical assaults, bomb attacks, disappearances and forced displacement. As such, I find there is more than a mere possibility that claimants would be persecuted due to their religion if they return to Egypt.

State Protection

[16]     I do acknowledge the efforts of the state to recognize and promote religious tolerance in Egypt, as the 2017 U.S. Commission of International Religious Freedom report indicates that since 2014, President Sisi has made significant strides to address religious freedom concerns. However, despite notable progress, the number of violent attacks targeting Christians increased. Furthermore, discriminatory laws and policies remain in place and continue to negatively impact Christians, including blasphemy laws and limits on conversion from Islam. Further the evidence before me is that the government frequently failed to prevent, investigate or prosecute crimes targeting members of religious minorities, which fosters a climate of impunity. As in the situation of the claimants, in reporting the issues to police, they were advised to reconcile or leave things, in order to keep the peace. I find that given the objective evidence of increasing violence directed towards Christians in Egypt, that is unabated despite the state’s efforts and given the claimants own experiences of violence without authorities being willing or able to protect or even assist them, I find that the claimants would not have access to adequate operationally effective state protection in returning to Egypt.

Internal Flight Alternative

[17]     The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. Although, the country condition information before me indicates that larger urban centres are safer for religious minorities. The United Kingdom Home Office states that:

Cities, such as Cairo and Alexandria, have large, socio-economically and culturally diverse populations which co-exist, for the most part, peaceably. Many people move to different parts of Egypt for social and economic reasons.¹⁵

[18]     The claimants lived in what was once a religiously diverse city with a high Christian populace, the situation in Egypt, is that extremists, are targeting persons of the Christian faith, the claimants as having more than many, as owning a local pharmacy, would continue to come under attack as there is almost no evidence before me that even living in a urban center with a large Christian population, can protection one from the violence throughout Egypt. Therefore, I find that claimants would face similar persecution for their Christian faith, throughout Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[19]     For the foregoing reasons the panel finds that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees as set out in section 96. Therefore, their claims are accepted.

(signed)           J. SCHMALZBAUER

May 27, 2019

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

² Exhibit 2.

³ Exhibit 1.

⁴ Exhibits 5 and 6.

⁵ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, March 29, 2019, Item 12.1.

⁶ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

⁷ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.4.

⁸ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.8 Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY105805.E.

⁹ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.8 RIR EGY105805.E.

¹⁰ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

¹¹ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

¹² Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

¹³ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

¹⁴ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

¹⁵ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1.5.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 199
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 31, 2019
Panel: Ethan McMonagle
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jonathan Richard J Lage
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB9-00453
Associated RPD Number(s): MB9-00461
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002183-002186

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       You allege that you are sisters, who come from a devout Coptic Christian family of Egyptian nationality. You both spent most of your lives in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia), but your status their was contingent upon your father, whose status itself was temporary. In Egypt, you fear persecution at the hands of Muslim extremists as a result of your religious identity as Coptic Christians. Fearing return to Egypt, you each filed claims for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       I find that your respective identities as nationals of Egypt are established by the documents provided: your passports¹ and your birth certificates.²

[7]       You have also established your identity as Coptic Christians by providing your birth certificates, baptism certificates and a supporting letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of Egypt XXXX XXXX XXXX.³

Nexus

[8]       I find that you have each established a nexus to section 96 by reason of religion.

Credibility

[9]       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, namely that you are each of the Coptic Christian faith. After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Objective basis of future risk

[10]     The fact that you face this risk is corroborated by the following documents contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, March 29, 2019 version. Briefly, abuses of Coptic Christians were increasing even before the fall of the Mubarak regime. Christian properties, including homes, businesses, and churches, have been destroyed and Christians have been the primary targets of violent sectarian attacks. Christians have been arrested and detained; they have also faced harassment, rape, mental and physical abuse and pressure to convert to Islam; police officers have been involved in the persecution of Christians. The state has not adequately protected Christians, and has failed to prosecute perpetrators.⁴

State protection

[11]     I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. The objective evidence indicates that the Egyptian authorities not only fail to protect Coptic Christians, but they themselves engage in violence against them, and perpetrators of attacks against Christians commit abuses in a climate of impunity.⁵ I find that your evidence, when considered in conjunction with the objective evidence, is a clear and convincing rebuttal of the presumption of state protection.

Internal flight alternative

[11]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. The evidence does not suggest that the religiously-motivated violence is restricted to a particular area of Egypt, or that individuals in your situation could find safety elsewhere.⁶ As such, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative in Egypt for you.

CONCLUSION

[12]     Having considered the evidence, I find there is a serious possibility that you would each be persecuted upon return to Egypt because of your Coptic Christian identities. I conclude that you are “Convention refugees”. Accordingly, I accept your claims.

(signed)           ETHAN MCMONAGLE

May 31, 2019

¹ Document 1 – Package of information from the referring Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) / Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

² Document 4 – Personal Documents

³ Ibid.

⁴ Document 3 – National Documentation Package, Egypt, (CND – Egypt) 29 March 2019, tab 12.8: Response to information request EGY105805.E., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 20 June 2017; Tab 12.1: Egypt. International Religious Freedom Report for 2017, United States, Department of State, 28 May 2018.

⁵ Supra note 4, tab 12.8.

⁶ Supra note 4, tab 12.5: Egypt’s Christians Flee ISIS Violence: Displaced Call Security Officials’ Response ‘Apathetic‘, Human Rights Watch, Joe Stork, 13 March 2017.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 196
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 17, 2019
Panel: François Ramsay
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Odette Desjardins
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB7-18982
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-18985, MB7-19007, MB7-19008, MB7-19056, MB7-19057, MB7-19058
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001728-001732

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXhis wifeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXXhis in-laws, XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who claim to be citizens of Egypt, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

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

[3]       I have appointed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as designated representative for his minor child XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

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

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The claimants allege the following:

[6]       The claimants are Coptic Christians.

[7]       On XXXX XXXX 2017, XXXX XXXX the daughter of the principal claimant, was the victim of a kidnapping attempt at the hands of two men, one of whom she knew as a classmate. This individual, considered to be a Muslim extremist, had already harassed her in the past.

[8]       The same day, the principal claimant tried unsuccessfully to lodge a complaint with the police. When the police officer refused to record the complaint and the principal claimant insisted, the officer threatened to detain and accuse him and his daughter of being disrespectful to a police officer.

[9]       The following night, XXXX and the principal claimant started receiving a number of threatening phone calls from her aggressor.

[10]     Frightened, the principal claimant and his family decided to seek shelter in Alexandria.

[11]     On XXXX XXXX 2017, XXXX was informed by a friend that her aggressor was looking for her.

[12]     On XXXX XXXX 2017, the principal claimant was informed by his in-laws that his daughter’s aggressor had come after them. As a result, they joined the rest of the family in Alexandria.

[13]     On XXXX XXXX 2017, all the claimants left Egypt for Canada.

[14]     They that should they return to Egypt, they will fall victim to XXXX aggressor and his accomplice who will want to seek revenge over the family’s refusal to convert XXXX to Islam and marry her to her aggressor.

DETERMINATION

[15]     I find that the claimants are “Convention refugees” as they have established a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Egypt based on the grounds in section 96.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[16]     I find that the identity of the claimants as nationals of Egypt is established by the documents provided, namely their passport.

Nexus

[17]     I find that the claimants have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of their religion.

Credibility

[18]     Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues.

[19]     The claimants submitted documentary evidence in support of their claims. With respect to the evidence submitted by the principal applicants, Exhibits P-6 to P-12 and P-28 corroborate the allegations of the claimants with respect to their religious faith. Exhibits P-21 and P-22 corroborate the allegations of the principal claimant with respect to his marital status and the composition of his family. Exhibits P-13 to P-19 and P-28 corroborate the allegations of the principal claimant and his wife regarding their educational and professional background.

[20]     With respect to the evidence submitted by the in-laws, Exhibit P-6 and P-9 corroborate their allegations with respect to their religious faith. Exhibits P-21 and P-22 corroborate their allegations with respect to their marital status and the composition of their family.

[21]     After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt neither their authenticity, nor the truthfulness of their content.

Objective Basis of Future risR

[22]     Despite some positive elements in the objective evidence, I find, based on the credibility of the allegations of the claimants, and the documentary evidence set out below, that as Christian Copts, they have established a future risk that they would be subjected to the following harm should they return to Egypt: societal and institutional intimidation and discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs, forced displacement and physical assault, as well as prosecution for blasphemy, proselytizing, and denigration of Islam.

[23]     The fact that the claimants face this risk is corroborated by the documents found at tabs 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, 12.6, 12.8 of the National Documentation Package for Egypt – March 29, 2019 Version.

Nature of the Harm

[24]     This harm clearly amounts to persecution.

State Protection

[25]     I find that there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimants with adequate protection.

Internal Flight Alternative

[26]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. I come to that conclusion considering that, according to the above-cited documentary evidence, Coptic Christians are presently exposed to a constant risk of persecution wherever they may be located.

CONCLUSION

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

(signed)           François Ramsay 

September 17, 2019

Citation: 2019 RLLR 194
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 2, 2019
Panel: Jeffrey Brian Gullickson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Raphael Vagliano
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB7-06938
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-06961, MB7-11944
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001351-001024

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, is a citizen of Egypt, according to her passport submitted as evidence. Her daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and son, XXXX XXXX XXXX, are citizens of the United States Of America (US), according to their passports submitted as evidence. They are all claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       I appointed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as designated representative for the associate minor child claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXIn rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The principal claimant had three children with her husband in Egypt. She first came to the US with that husband. The male claimant was born there in 2001.

[4]       The principal claimant divorced her husband in 2001 and then married a Christian man, who was a permanent resident of the US, but her permanent residency was refused in the US. Her family found out about her marriage to a Christian and swore to kill her for an act against Islam. She divorced her second husband in 2009.

[5]       She made a refugee claim in the US in 2008, but it was denied in 2011 and lived illegally in the US, until she came to Canada.

[6]       She had the female child claimant with another man outside of marriage in 2010. Her family in Egypt learned to the child born outside marriage and threatened her with death for another offence against Islam.

[7]       Fearing deportation, the principal claimant came to Canada with her US daughter and made a refugee claim in 2017. The US male child claimant came into Canada later and made a refugee claim.

DETERMINATION

[8]       I find that the principal claimant is a “Convention refugee” as she established a serious possibility of persecution for religion and membership in a particular social group in Egypt as a woman victim of conjugal or family violence without adequate state protection in Egypt.

[9]       I find that the US associate claimants have not satisfied the burden of establishing a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, or that, on a balance of probabilities, they would personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture upon return to their country, the US.

ANALYSIS

US Child claimants

[10]     The principal claimant in her own basis of claim form (BOC) and those of her children did not indicate that her US children faced a risk of serious harm in the US.

[11]     Their most recent counsel of record stated in the hearing that he did not intend to make any submissions for the US child claimants, regarding the US, and the principal claimant testified that these claimants did not face a serious harm in the US.

[12]     In the National Documentation Package (NDP) for the US, dated March 29, 2019, does not indicate that the child claimants, in their particular circumstances, would face a risk of serious harm in the US, or that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the child claimants in the US, or that there is a probability of risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment for the child claimants there. I do not consider that the separation of the family is sufficient to be understood as a serious harm or persecution for the child claimants, in particular since the laws of nationality and the control of borders are laws of general application, and have not been shown to be contrary to international standards of justice. Also, the documentation package for the US does not indicate that the child claimants would not be protected, if they needed protection in the US, as US citizens.

Credibility – principal claimant

[13]     I found the principal claimant generally credible regarding the main elements of her claim and of the claim for her US children.

[14]     She submitted credible and probative evidence regarding her religion as a Muslim previously in Egypt, of her marriages and relationships with her previous husbands or partners, the fact that some of them were Christian, and the birth of her children, including her daughter who was born while her mother, the principal claimant, was not married (C-1 to C-10 and C-17 to C- 18).

[15]     She submitted country condition information for Egypt regarding the mistreatment of Christians and women without adequate state protection. (C-11 to C-16).

[16]     The NDP for Egypt, dated March 29, 2019 indicates that women face practical widespread legal, social and economic discrimination in Egypt and that domestic violence (that may be considered family violence) is widespread and considered socially acceptable in Egypt (NDP, tab 1.4, section 2.3 and tab 5.6) and state protection is often ineffective and police are reluctant to investigate cases of violence against women (NDP, tab 1.4, section 2.4 and tab 5.5).

[17]     While there may be no legal impediment to internal movement, for even single women in Egypt who relocate for a variety of reasons (NDP, tab 1.4, section 2.4 and tab 5.5), the claimant is also a woman who has demonstrated that she is not a fully practicing Muslim and would likely encounter hostility or violence in a new residential area in Egypt.

[18]     Regarding women’s choice not to wear the hijab in public in Egypt, the NDP mentions harassment against women not wearing the hijab in Egypt and the perception that they are not Muslim (NDP, tab 5.1). The claimant, who does not wear a hijab as Muslim, would encounter other problems compounded by the fact of her past relations with Christian men and her daughter born outside marriage.

[19]     The NDP indicates that there have been recent terrorist attacks against Christians, Christian institutions, churches, and that State protection for Christians and their institutions is inadequate (NDP, tabs 12.1, 12, 5, 12.8, 12.14 and 12.16). Consequently, the claimant as a perceived apostate or Christian would face an increased risk of violence.

[20]     While religious conversion from Islam to Christianity or leaving Islam is not technically illegal in Egypt, the State can bring criminal charges against persons for apostasy, apostasy is forbidden by the Sharia and the State can prosecute persons for apostasy under the penal code for “denigrating religions” (NDP, tab 1.7, section 5.4.1).

State Protection

[21]     I find that there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the principal claimant in Egypt with adequate protection, for the reasons stated above.

Internal flight alternative

[22]     I have considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists for the principal claimant. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt for the principal claimant.

[22]     She has demonstrated in her testimony and evidence that she is not a practicing Muslim, has married Christian men and shows the will to continue this open behaviour as well as not wearing the hijab and not willing to conceal or hide the fact that she has married Christians and had a child outside marriage. Consequently, I conclude that if she were not targeted by her immediate family, that she would have serious difficulty from orthodox Muslims and would have serious problems as a single woman to be able to live on her own in an IFA.

CONCLUSION

[24]     Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the principal claimant is a “Convention refugee” and I accept her claim.

[25]     For the reasons above, I conclude that the US child claimants are not “Convention refugees” under section 96 of IRPA or “persons in need of protection” within the meaning of section 97 (l)(a) or (b) of IRPA. Their claims are rejected.

(signed)           Jeffrey Brian Gullickson

August 2, 2019

Citation: 2019 RLLR 193
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 21, 2019
Panel: K. Khamsi
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Samir N Roman
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-24464
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001013-001016

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of 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]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       You allege the following: That you face persecution in Egypt at the hands of the Muslim brotherhood because of your religion.

[4]       You have been targeted by the Muslim brothers because of the work you do in church with those Christians who converted to Islam under duress.

[5]       Muslim extremists have kidnapped your ex-girlfriend and your wife and have killed the priest you used to work with.

[6]       You are afraid to be killed by Muslim extremists if you refuse to convert to Islam.

DETERMINATION

[7]       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

[8]       I find that your identity as a national of Egypt is established by the documents provided such as your passport. Your religious identity was established by the supporting documents you have provided in exhibit 5.

Nexus

[9]       I find that you have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of religion.

Credibility

[10]     You have provided a narrative that is consistent with country conditions. Your profile as a Coptic Christian was also well documented. Where fear is due to cumulative acts of discrimination or harassment, the issue of delay cannot be used to impugn subjective fear solely.¹ This delay in departure does not undermine your overall credibility.

[11]     When considering the totality of the evidence I find that your written evidence is supported by reliable corroborating documents, and find that you have a credible subjective fear.

Objectively well-founded

[12]     Your fear of persecution is based on being Coptic Christian. You have experienced persecution and discrimination amounting to persecution as Coptic Christian, and this is supported by the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt.

[13]     Christians represent five to ten percent of the Egyptian population, and of those 90 percent are Coptic. The Coptic Christian community have continued to experience discrimination and intimidation because of their religious beliefs, particularly in areas where there are many Muslim Brotherhood supporters. They continue to be the target of sectarian violence.

[14]     While there is evidence that violence has decreased following the incidents that shook the Coptic community in 2013; discrimination and violence remain a problem. There are reports of large numbers of assaults on Coptic Christians as well as prosecutions for proselytizing, blasphemy and denigration of religion.

State protection

[15]     I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case based on country conditions. It is noted in the NDP that the police and authorities do not intervene to protect Coptic Christians who are victims of criminal acts. Where a Coptic Christian victim wants to go forward with prosecution of a violent crime, the reliable documentary evidence suggests that crimes committed against Coptic Christians are dealt with slowly which fosters an atmosphere of impunity overall. This is also consistent with the claimant’s experiences.

Internal flight alternative (IFA)

[16]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. Coptic Christians are exposed to risk of persecution in all areas of the country, and given your profile, Coptic Christians who are active in their religious community, it would be unreasonable for you to seek refuge in any part of the country.

CONCLUSION

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

(signed)           K. KHAMSI

November 21, 2019

1 Shah, Mahmood Ali v. M.C.l. (F.C., no. IMM-4425-02), Blanchard, September 30, 2003, 2003 FC 1121.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 192
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 3, 2019
Panel: P. Gueller
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Namita Dass
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-09802
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000944-000948

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a 45-year-old woman who is a citizen of Egypt and holds no other citizenship. Is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of 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.

Determination:

[3]       I find the claimant is a Convention refugee as she has established a well-founded fear of persecution based on the Convention ground, namely, her membership in a particular social group because of her religion.

Identity:

[4]       The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt has been established by her testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely, a copy of her passport. She also confirmed today at the hearing that she has no permanent resident or citizenship status in any country other than Egypt.

Nexus:

[5]       I find that you have each established a nexus to Section 96 by reason of religion.

Allegations:

[6]       In the claimant’s Basis of Claim Form she indicates that she fears persecution if she were to return to Egypt because of her religion as she is a Coptic Orthodox Christian.

[7]       She also stated that she lived in Egypt her entire life.

[8]       The claimant alleges that she is a Coptic Christian from Cairo, Egypt. She was harassed, pressured, and threatened to be killed by an ex-co-worker to convert to Islam. Because of that she was pressured to move to different locations to avoid her persecutor.

[9]       She divorced her husband who converted to Islam before the definitive divorce certificate that was issued in June 2016.

[10]     In mid-documents 2018 she was attacked by two women that forced her into a microbus, hitting her and tried to force her to announce her Islam.

[11]     On a few occasions she went to visit her father in Kuwait to escape temporarily leave the persecution. However, there was no option for her to stay permanently in Kuwait.

[12]     She fears harm because of her religion and gender should the … should she return to Egypt.

[13]     The claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 and applied for asylum on April 5, 2019.

Analysis:

Credibility:

[14]     I find the claimant to be credible witness testifying in a straightforward manner. There were minor inconsistencies between your testimony and the documents before me or between your oral and written testimonies.

[15]     Coptic Christians is a religious minority in Egypt.

[16]     I have considered the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence in support of her allegations. Like the certificate of baptism and her national identity card at Exhibit 5.

[17]     I asked how you would be identified in your country. Either outside or by your documentation, you indicated you wear a cross as a pendant and you don’t wear a scarf over your hair and wear … wear some clothes.

[18]     You said that you were practicing Christian in your country attending church twice a week and have been baptized twice.

[19]     On a balance of probabilities, I find it is reasonable that you would be identified as a Christian in your home country through your appearance and actions, as well as through your identification documents.

[20]     The claimant testified as to the personal difficulties. She has suffered aggression, violence, and persecution prior to coming to Canada. This occurred on the street, in your workplace, and with your ex­ husband that converted to Islam.

[21]     The claimant went to the police but they refused to take report because she did not know the complete information of her persecutor.

[22]     I have considered the claimant’s testimony and also the objective evidence regarding the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt today.

[23]     A response of … to information request in the National Documentation Package for Egypt outlines widespread societal violence against Coptic Christians in Egypt. According to the RIR attacks against Coptic Christian’s homes and buildings, as well as physical assaults against Coptic persons in Alexandria are a regular occurrence. The same RIR also outlines similar attacks throughout the country including numerous attacks by terrorist groups directed at Coptic Christians.

[24]     The United States Department of State international religious freedom report for Egypt reports that Coptic Christians throughout Egypt face societal discrimination in their daily lives.

[25]     A report by the United States Religious Freedom Commission states that human rights groups reported more than 120 sectarian attacks including mob attacks against Christians and churches. And the Jack of effective prosecution of perpetrators remained a serious concern.

[26]     A series of attacks in 2017 by affiliates of the terrorist group the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS, targeted houses of worship including attacks against churches and Christians that resulted in almost 100 deaths and hundreds of injuries.

[27]     Sources indicate that the Christian minority is victim of aggression, violation, kidnapping, and extortion. This is coherent with your allegations of violence and aggressions which you have claimed to have suffered in your country.

[28]     In consideration of the ensemble of the evidence I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution if she has to return to Egypt for reasons of her religion.

State Protection:

[29]     I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of State protection with clear and convincing evidence that the Egyptian State would be unwilling or unable to provide her with adequate protection.

[30]     I have considered whether or not State protection would be adequate for the claimant in Egypt at this time.

[31]     According to the objective evidence the Egyptian authorities have not only been tolerant of violence and discrimination against the Christian minority, they have been engaged in acts of violence as well.

[32]     There are reports indicated … indicating that there have been a certain number of arrests for violence committed against the Christianity minority. However, they are very limited.

[33]     I note the objective evidence confirms that the authorities tolerate violence and they are slow to act if they do act at all to protect members of religious minorities from discrimination and violence.

[34]     A report by the United States Religious Freedom Commission finds that authorities in Egypt routinely pressured Christians to drop charges against Muslims.

[35]     A Human Rights Watch report describes the response by authorities to violence against Christians in Egypt as indifferent.

[36]     Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, based on the claimant’s credible allegations and the documentary evidence before me I find that State protection would not be adequate for her at this time in Egypt.

Internal Flight Alternative:

[37]     I have also considered whether or not an internal flight alternative would be available to the claimant. The objective evidence indicates that the situation for Christians is difficult in all areas of Egypt. That Christian’s persecution is widespread throughout Egypt.

[38]     Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt and as a consequence there is no viable internal flight alternative for her anywhere in the country.

Conclusion:

[39]     I find that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon her return to Egypt based on her religion. Therefore, her claim is accepted. The claimant is recognized as a Convention refugee.

[40]     COUNSEL: Thank you, Member. ———- REASONS CONCLUDED ——-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 190
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 22, 2019
Panel: P. Gueller
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amro Hayek
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-04856
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-04866, TB9-04887, TB9-04888
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000890-000897

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the minors XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are citizens from Egypt. The associate claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Jordan. The claimants are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act)¹.

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

DETERMINATION

[3]       I find all the claimants to be Convention Refugees as they have established a well- founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely they are convention refugees based on the convention ground of religion.

IDENTITY

[4]       The principal claimant’s identity and the two minors as nationals of Egypt and the associate claimant identity as a national of Jordan, are established through their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely their passports.²

PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The principal claimant alleges he cannot return to Egypt because he would be persecuted by his family and the authorities because he has converted from Islam to Christianity.

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[6]       The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. Both claimants testified in a straightforward and consistent manner. Their oral testimony was consistent with the Basis of Claim form (BOC)³. I find the claimants to be credible witnesses on a balance of probabilities.

[7]       The principal claimant has established his identity as a Christian convert by providing documentary evidence in support of his allegations.⁴

• Baptism certificate
• Photographs of his Baptism
• Recommendation Letter from his church “Family Rescue International Ministries”
• Translation of the telephone chat about his conversion between his wife and her sister

[8]       The principal claimant testified that he attended Christian school when he was a child and living in Syria, so he was able to be in contact with Christian teachers and friends. After moving with his family to Saudi Arabia, he was told by his parents that he had to forget what he learned about Christianity.

[9]       He stated that his parents had a car accident, where his mother passed away and his father lost both legs, and that was a breakthrough moment in his life about religion and being more conscious that he wanted to know more about Christianity. He had many unanswered questions about Islam and he approached Muslim clerics for explanations because he felt a lack of spiritual fulfillment. The claimant alleges that since his mother passed away, he questioned his religion and the Islamic principles to which he had to adhere to.

[10]     The principal claimant stated that he had a temporary working visa in Saudi Arabia and in XXXX 2018, he decided to quit his job and come to Canada to join his wife, because she was studying in Canada.

[11]     Upon his arrival to Canada, he felt confident to start inquiring about Christianity and through a co-worker he found the church where he is attending now.

[12]     His wife testified that the principal claimant told her about his intention to convert to Christianity in January 2019. Because she did not know how to convince him not to do it, she called her and his family asking for help. She stated that the reaction of both families was the same, to threaten him that they will kill him if he converts to Christianity. Also, that her family, specifically told her that she had to divorce him and return to Jordan, leaving the children with him, otherwise, she would also face being killed if she returns to Jordan.

[13]     The associate claimant stated that she and the principal claimant came to an agreement that she understands he could practice his faith and be able to continue their life together.

[14]     The principal claimant also testified that even though he would be able to obtain citizenship for his wife in Egypt, because he has converted to Christianity, his whole family will be persecuted there, by religious extremists and the state.

[15]     After reviewing all of the evidence, I find the claimant’s evidence to be consistent. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant’s account. As such, I find the claimant to be credible with respect to his material allegations: specifically, that he is a Christian convert Egyptian citizen who will be targeted by Muslims and radicals because of his conversion to Christianity.

MINORS

[16]     The principal claimant alleged and testified that in Egypt or Jordan, his children would be abused and discriminated against for having a father that is a Christian convert and that they would face harassment and persecution.

[17]     The NDP documentary evidence shows that “Media sources report on the case of a father who had converted to Christianity from Islam who faced mistreatment when attempting to leave the country with his daughter (Compass Direct News 22 Apr. 2011; Porte Ouvertes 30 mars 2011). The father wanted to bring the daughter out of the country as it was not possible to change his ID card (ibid.; Compass Direct News 22 Apr. 2011). According to news agency Compass Direct News, the two had to obtain a court order granting them permission to leave the country (ibid.)”⁵

[18]     I have considered the impact that the principal’s claimant conversion to Christianity will have into the minors’ life if they were to return to Egypt. Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that also the minors will be facing harassment and discrimination if they were to return to Egypt.

[19]     In addition, the minors will not be able to obtain Jordanian citizenship through their mother, as according to the NDP:

“In Jordan, a child born to a Jordanian mother and a non-Jordanian father is considered a noncitizen in the eyes of the state. In violation of international human rights law, which obliges Jordan not to discriminate against women, Jordanian law allows only fathers to pass citizenship to their children. It does not allow Jordanian women to even confer automatic long-term residency on their children. Despite government promises to grant these individuals key economic and social rights, non-citizen children of Jordanian women continue to face legal restrictions that trap many of them at the margins of Jordanian society.”⁶

[20]     Therefore, I find, that the minors do not have access to any other citizenship than Egypt, where they will be facing harassment by the authorities and neighbors, on a balance of probabilities.

Likelihood of Harm – serious possibility and objective evidence

[21]     I find that the claimant has established that he and his children have a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Egypt due to his identity as a Christian convert.

[22]     The International Religious Freedom Report for 2015⁷ for Egypt discusses the current level of religious tolerance in Egypt. Specifically, with respect to Christian converts. It states:

“Lethal sectarian violence continued over the year, and included the killing of a convert to Christianity by her Muslim family and the targeting of Christians in North Sinai based on their religious identity. The construction of churches continued to be met with societal resistance, including acts of violence. Such violence occurred in connection with construction of a new church approved by the president in El- ‘Our, the village from which came a majority of the 20 Egyptian Copts killed in Libya in February. In many cases, individuals charged with denigration of religion also faced societal violence or threats of violence, according to Christian leaders.”

[23]     A Response to Information Request (RIR)⁸ issued by the Board on November 27, 2013 entitled: Egypt: Whether people who have converted from Islam to Christianity, particularly those converts who have been arrested, are able to obtain passports and leave the country (April 2010-November 2013) states:

“Muslim converts to Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam tantamount to treason” (Associate Professor 8 Nov. 2013). Similarly, in correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a board member of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Canada stated that authorities will attempt to dissuade someone from converting from Islam to Christianity and may arbitrarily imprison the person alongside “dangerous criminals” if they insist on converting (Coptic Orthodox Church of Canada 13 Nov. 2013).

[24]     I find that adequate state protection will not be available to the principal and minor claimants if they were to return to Egypt. Objective evidence indicates that the authorities not only fail to protect Coptic Christians and Christian converts, but themselves engage in violence against such persons, while perpetrators of attacks against Christians commit abuses in a climate of impunity.⁹ I find that the claimant’s evidence, when considered together with the objective evidence, is a clear and convincing rebuttal of the presumption of state protection.

[25]     Having considered the claimant’s evidence as well as the objective evidence contained in the NDP and counsel’s package of disclosure¹⁰, I find there is a serious possibility that the principal and minor claimants would be persecuted upon return to Egypt because of the principal claimant’s conversion to Christianity. The principal claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Egypt by reason of being a Christian convert and the minors because they will be harassed by having a Christian father.

IFA

[26]     The evidence does not suggest that the religiously-motivated violence is restricted to a particular area of Egypt, or that individuals in the claimant’s situation could find safety elsewhere¹¹. The NDP documentary evidence states that Christians are being persecuted in Egypt as converting to Christianity from Islam is considered an offence, and the person will have “difficulty dealing with officials and neighbors … The Associate Professor added that “Muslim converts ta Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam”.¹²

[27]     As such, I find that the claimants cannot avail themselves of a viable internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[28]     For the reasons set out above, I find the principal claimant and the minors are Convention refugees and I accept their claim.

(signed)           PAULINA GUELLER  

October 22, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 1

3 Exhibit 2

4 Exhibit 6

5 NDP Egypt 12.7

6 NDP Jordan 3.9

7 Exhibit 3, item 12.1.

8  Exhibit 3, 12.7 Egypt: Whether people who have converted from Islam to Christianity, particularly those converts who have been arrested, are able to obtain passports and leave the country (April 2010- November 2013)

9 Exhibit 3, Item 12.8, Egypt: Situation and treatment of Christians; availability of state protection.

10 Exhibit 5

11 Exhibit 3, Item 12.5: Sectarian Attacks Amid Political Crisis.

12 NDP Egypt 12.7