Tag: Religion

Citation: 2019 RLLR 181
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 26, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A. Kaminker
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-26310
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-26375, TB8-26376
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000721-000727

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the claimant”), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the minor claimants”), who claim to be citizens of Egypt and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

[2]       As the claimants are a mother and her two sons, aged fifteen and thirteen years respectively, their claims were joined pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.² Having reviewed the claimant’s divorce certificate and parental consent from the father of the two minor children, the panel assigned the claimant as the designated representative for the minor claimants. All three claimants rely on the allegations as stated in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim, RPD file number TB8-26310.

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[3]       Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA³ 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.⁴ Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁵ 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.

[4]       The claimant’s case was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness⁶ for the expedited process on January 29, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that it meets the criteria for expedited determination. This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division.⁷

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The following is a summary of the allegations as outlined in the narrative to the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC)⁸ form dated October 11, 2018.

[6]       The claimant was born in Cairo- into a Muslim family. She had been married a total of three times. In around 2013, when her third husband insisted that they travel to Mecca for the pilgrimage, the claimant began to actively reject Islam. She started reading the Bible and watching Christian programs, and, in 2014 travelled to Italy to visit an old friend who had converted to Christianity. In Italy, the claimant attended church and took lessons to learn more about Christ, hoping to be baptized before returning to Egypt. In 2015, the claimant was unable to keep her new faith from her employer and colleagues, and quit her job as a result of the animosity. Suspicion of her conversion to Christianity spread, and she began to fear for the safety of her two sons, the minor claimants. The claimant’s family members began to pressure her to undertake the pilgrimage, and the minor claimants feared that their father, the claimant’s former spouse, might report her to the authorities for apostasy. The claimant realized that she could not practise her religion freely in Egypt. When she observed that her older son became interested in Christian teachings and expressed a wish to be baptized himself, the claimant made the decision to leave Egypt with her sons and seek safety abroad.

[7]       The claimants travelled from Egypt to Canada on previously obtained tourist visas and made their claims for refugee protection on October 18, 2018 at the port of entry in St. Catharines, Ontario.

[8]       The claimant fears persecution and harm at the hands of radical Islamists and state officials on the basis of religion in Egypt. She also alleges that the Egyptian authorities are unable or unwilling to protect her, and in tum her sons, as a convert from Islam to Christianity.

DETERMINATION

[9]       The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

[10]     The claimants’ identities as nationals of Egypt have been established, on a balance of probabilities, by their Arab Republic of Egypt passports⁹ that were seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—religious

[11]     The claimant has established her identity as a convert from Islam to Orthodox Christianity by way of the following personal documentation: her national identity card, birth, and divorce certificates, all of which indicate the holder’s religion to be Islam¹⁰; and letters from churches in Italy, Egypt, and Canada¹¹;baptism certificate from the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Cairo¹²; and photographs depicting the claimant in church with her priest.¹³

Credibility

[12]     The panel has reviewed the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC),¹⁴ intake forms,¹⁵ and personal documentation disclosed,¹⁶ and has found the claimant to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that she has converted from Islam to Orthodox Christianity and has actively practised her new faith as a Coptic Christian in Egypt and Canada since her official baptism ceremony, which took place on January 16, 2016¹⁷ in Cairo.

[13]     In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,¹⁸ the panel has found the claimant’s personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, her profile as an Egyptian citizen who has converted from Islam to Christianity, and who faces a risk of persecution on the basis of religious identity.

[14]     As religion forms a basis for refugee claims, as per section 96 of IRPA, the test is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimants return to Egypt. The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimants have met that test.

State protection

[15]     In order to establish a claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, the claimant must rebut the presumption of state protection. The claimant did not seek police protection, as the representatives of the Egyptian state were themselves the agents of persecution in this particular case. The claimant feared her family members, including her mother, brothers, and former spouse, and tried to keep her new faith from state officials and everyone else around her. She came to believe that the police would not only fail to protect her and her children in Egypt, but would actively pursue her on charges of apostasy.

[16]     The panel has before it country conditions documentation indicating that

a convert to Christianity from Islam will have extreme difficulty dealing with officials and neighbours who have any idea of his or her decision … [and] Muslim converts to Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam tantamount to treason.¹⁹ [citations omitted]

[17]     Similarly, a spokesperson from 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. A report from Amnesty International (AI) states that under the country’s emergency law, in force since the 1981 assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, there was a system of administrative detention allowing for the detention of individuals “without charge or trial.” The report indicates that such administrative detainees could include religious minorities, and “sometimes converts from Islam to Christianity.”²⁰ [citations omitted]

[18]     The panel also has before documentation indicating that Copts have complained of arise in kidnappings, armed robberies and assault following the ousting of former President Morsi.²¹ There are longstanding allegations that the authorities have failed to provide sufficient protection for the Coptic community, and that inadequate police response has created a climate of impunity:

The government frequently failed to prevent, investigate, or prosecute crimes targeting members of religious minority groups, which fostered a climate of impunity, according to a prominent local rights organization. The government often failed to protect Christians targeted by kidnappings and extortion according to sources in the Christian community, and there were reports that security and police officials sometimes failed to respond to these crimes, especially in Upper Egypt.²²

[19]     Country documentation confirms that Christians continue to be targeted by Islamic militants, attacks against Copts take place throughout Egypt, and state authorities are slow to act.²³ The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence before it supports the claimant’s allegations, and that she has provided clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect her as a Coptic Christian. As such, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection should she return to Egypt. The panel also finds that there is not an area of the country where the claimant would be able to practise her religion freely and in safety.

[20]     Given the documentary evidence before the panel, both personal and objective, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimants could face persecution and harm at the hands of Muslim extremists, including state officials, should they return to Egypt. The panel further finds that state protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to the principal claimant as a convert from Islam and practising Orthodox Christian anywhere in the country, and that this lack of protection extends to her sons, the minor claimants, as well.

CONCLUSION

[21]     Based on the foregoing analysis, the panel has determined that the claimants have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground as per section 96 of IRPA if they were to return to Egypt.

[22]     The panel therefore finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and accepts the claims.

(signed)           M. MOC

February 26, 2019

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

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

3  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 170(f).

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

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

6 Exhibit 6.

7 Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division, effective January 29, 2019.

8 Exhibit 2, BOC of principal claimant, TB8-26310.

9 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

10 Exhibit 7, personal documentation package #1.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Exhibit 8, personal documentation package #2.

14 Exhibit 2.

15 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

16 Exhibit 11.

17 Exhibit 7, page 11.

18 Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.

19 Ibid., tab 12.7: 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). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 November 2013. EGY104664.E.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., tab 12.1: Egypt. International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. United States. Department of State. 10 August 2016.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid., tab 12.8: Situation of Coptic Christians, including treatment; state protection available (2014-May 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 8 May 2015. EGY105152.E.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 173
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 21, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Lily Luwam Tekle
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-17112
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-17135, TB7-17148, TB7-17149, TB7-17157
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000525-000530

DECISION

[1]     MEMBER: We are back on the record now and the same parties are present. Okay, I am going to give a decision now and in the interpreter will be doing this simultaneously, thank you.

[2]     This is the decision in the claims with respect to the following XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the principal file is TB7-17112.

[3]     This decision is being rendered orally today and a written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax, grammar, references to the applicable case law and legislation and Exhibits may also be included.

[4]     First of all I would like to say that the designated representative in this case for the three minor children has been the principal male claimant Mr. XXXX and I have also taken into consideration in this case the Chairperson’ s Guideline 4 before the IRB and that is with respect to the issue of gender-related claims.

[5]     Having said that the nexus in this case has been that of a membership in a particular social group under the issue of gender with respect to the two female claimants and for the entire family with the exception of the youngest child, well it is actually for the whole family, but then my decision for the youngest child will be different than it is for the rest of the family.

[6]     But the nexus for the whole family is with the issue of religion or being non-conformist to the extremist views of Islamic views of some in the country that are considered extremists, but nonetheless carry some weight, sometimes even with the government.

[7]     The allegations in this case have been and are found in the Basis of Claim Forms of the claimants, but they rely primarily on that of the principal claimant Mr. XXXX and these are that even though the family was living well and he was successful in his employment as a XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX, everything was going well and the family had not had problems until 2017 when several threats were left in writing over a period of a few months, were left on the car of the female adult claimant.

[8]     And basically these threats made it very clear that her non-conformity to that she was only wearing a hijab, but was not wearing the Niqab had not gone unnoticed and neither had that of her daughter, her eldest child, XXXX, because XXXX was not wearing the Hijab.

[9]     She was also hanging around or had friends who were Christians and some of them were male friends and this was not being seen well by persons who carried a more extreme view of Islam and they were warned through letters that were left on the car as well as or in the mailbox as well as through e­ mails that were later sent to the principal claimant.

[10]   And, the e-mails as well as the letters increased in their violent aspect and towards the end they were very insulting to the female claimants as well as threatening to behead the adult principal claimant and to basically kill the entire family for not dressing in proper Islamic attire as well as for not going to the mosque and for not following the mores of Islam.

[11]   So, for all this and these allegations which are found in the Basis of Claim Forms led the claimants to fear that this group was going to actually carry out their threats.

[12]   They tried to leave and go to other cities to live or to another city, to the city of Suez, but they were unable to live there without encountering that these people knew they had gone there as well as they knew that they had reported to the police what was being said to them and that increased their fear that they were somehow being watched and that the threats could be carried out.

[13]   They also became fearful that the police were not interested in helping them because whenever they had made a report or they did on two occasions the police did nothing about it and there was no followup despite being told they would follow up and with all that the claimants decided to leave the country immediately and given that the principal claimant had access to airline tickets quickly because of his position with XXXX.

[14]   They made their plans to leave the country given that they also had Canadian visitors visa or temporary resident visas. They left the country in XXXX 2017 and came to Canada and subsequently made claims for protection in Canada.

[15]   Yes, on XXXX XXXX, 2017, they arrived at Pearson and went to Hamilton where they had a friend living in Canada. 

[16]   Okay, so, the issue of identity, I have considered that the certified true copies of your passports which are found in Exhibit 1 have indicated to me as well as the birth certificates that I have provided on file. On a balance of probabilities, I can conclude that the claimants are citizens of Egypt and the youngest claimant XXXX is the citizen of United States of America as his birth was in United States of America.

[17]   Therefore, I also wanted to say that I find that all the claimants with the exception of the youngest child XXXX XXXX XXXX, you are not included in this I am afraid, but the rest are Convention refugees for the following reasons.

[18]   As I have already mentioned the issue of your identity has been established. Looking at the issue of your credibility, I found that both you Mr. XXXX as well as Ms. XXXX that you were both credible witnesses in what you have alleged in your allegations, I have therefore accepted as credible.

[19]   With respect your credibility, I found that you were spontaneous in your replies and that you did not embellish when there was opportunity to embellish and your evidence was not inconsistent with the documentary material as well as with the rest of your documents. Therefore, I have accepted both of your testimony in this case.

[20]   According to your evidence, you seem to understand that you were not being Islamic enough by not wearing the Hijab in the case of XXXX as well as by having the friends that she had and going out with these friends.

[21]   And, with respect to you Ms. XXXX by not wearing the Niqab, you were considered not Islamic enough and therefore there would be consequences according to this extremist group that was sending you these threats and the consequences would be for your family as well as for your spouse by not insisting or not making the females of the family conform and wear the attire necessary.

[22]   According to the documentary material that is found in my package as well as the material found in counsel’s packages of Exhibit-6 and 7 and then Exhibit-8 as well, it would appear that in Egypt there are persons, that although they are considered to be extremists, they express this through threats by expecting the entire population to conform and dress in a certain way and to go to prayer at a certain time.

[23]   Anybody who is perceived to be a non-believer in Egypt or someone who is perceived to not have faith is considered to have breached the social or religious mores and in some cases not perhaps in your case where you have not been accused of apostasy, but in other cases where persons have been accused of apostasy, that actually reaches the level of being considered a crime.

[24]   The documentary material in my package Sections 1, 2 and 12 speak about the serious possibility of violence or harassment and persecution at the hands of the Muslim community by extremists groups to persons who they perceive to be non-Islamic or apostate or anyone who insults the religion.

[25]   In cases with respect to women, when the first revolution occurred in 2011 and then since the second one that took place, sexual assault increased in Egypt and though it was underreported it still was occurring at a terrible rate.

[26]   In counsel’s package, it speaks about there was at one point in the Arab world, being a woman in Egypt was considered to be the worst place to be a woman and so that was in 2013, but later reports have indicated that the situation has not improved tremendously at all for women.

[27]   The government brought in an anti-harassment law mostly to help women. However, this law was found to be quite onerous because a woman if she was able to get the police to take a report and take her seriously, she had to provide two witnesses to the harassment. So, needless to say, it went underreported as well and that was just in the case of harassment. We are not talking about the case where people are making threats.

[28]   And also in the documentary material in general referred to, speaks about the situation with respect to Human Rights in Egypt as having deteriorated very much so.

[29]   Now, with respect to the issue of State protection, that is where looking at the documents is so important and that is where the documentary material does also speak about when women complaint to the police, it does not get taken seriously and that is possibly what you experienced Ms. XXXX as well as XXXX when you went to talk to them about the threats that were being made to you.

[30]   For whatever reason they don’t take it seriously enough and despite bringing in a law, this anti­harassment law that might indicate the police is attempting to deal with the situation, nevertheless I have to look at, is the protection in the country adequate?

[31]   And, under the circumstances and looking at the documentary material at the present time, I don’t find that it is under your circumstances where the documents speak about all the sexual assaults that are occurring to women and to anyone who does not dress in serious extremist Muslim garb.

[32]   And, generally many in the population believe that it is also the woman’s fault if she is not dressed in strict Niqab or hijab and then is assaulted or sexually harassed, assaulted of course being worse.

[33]   So, given that and I believe that you Mr. XXXX when you said that you don’t want anybody pressuring you or your family with respect to your religion or making you follow in a certain way as well as, as you ma’am, Ms. XXXX when you said about how if you give in to one request that they make then they will just continue and until you are following everything that this group is telling you and while the documentary material speaks about the government trying to deal with extremism in terms of the violence that these extremists groups are causing in the country, it doesn’t seem to be working at the level of persons such as yourself that are experiencing these threats.

[34]   Therefore, given all of this that could be imputed to you for being religious nonconformist as well as the being of the female gender so membership in particular social group and I believe that you could not get the adequate State protection from the government as you have tried by going to the police on two occasions and now that it is possible that they are wondering if the family of Mr. XXXX if you have made a refugee claim abroad as you have; given that now may even put you in a position if they were to learn that you have made a claim that is, that you might be viewed in a different light by the government as you believe that you would be viewed as a traitor despite the fact that you had a position that was considered to be one given to people who are viewed well from their prospective of national security.

[35]   So, for all these reasons I find that the four of you …… oh, one more thing I have to mention is with respect to internal flight alternative in Alexandria. I’ve decided that based on the evidence I believe that what you face which is a serious possibility of persecution. I believe you face it throughout the country and that even if you were to move to Alexandria, I don’t believe you could do so and live safely without being in hiding and therefore that is not an option.

[36]   So, for these reasons then in the family XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX I find that you are Convention refugees.

[37]   However, with respect to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, there has been no evidence submitted regarding United States of America and that is that there is no evidence refuting the presumption of State protection for the minor child in the country of his citizenship.

[38]   I therefore find that you, XXXX, I have to reject your claim and I find that you are not a Convention refugee.

[39]   Okay? So, everybody else is…. Thank you. And thanks Madam Interpreter. This hearing is now concluded. Good day to everyone.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 172
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 12, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A. Kaminker
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-16955
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-16967, TB7-16968, TB7-16969
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000519-000524

DECISION

[1]     MEMBER: This is the decision in the claims with respect to, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is the principal claimant and her three children, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and the principal file number is TB7-16955.

[2]     Okay. This decision is being rendered today orally and a written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax, grammar, references to applicable case law and legislation and exhibits may also be included.

[3]     I find that all the claimants are nationals of Egypt as there are certified true copies of their passports found in Exhibit 1, as well as, later in the temporary resident visa file, Exhibit 7 and this, as well as, there are other personal documents, copies which are on file and all these indicate to me, on a balance of probabilities, that I can conclude that the claimants are all citizens of Egypt.

[4]     I find also that the claimants are all Convention refugees and my reasons are as follows:

[5]     First of all, I would like to say that the designated representative in this case, for the minor child, XXXX, is the principal claimant, his mother and she has understood what her responsibilities were as his designated representative.

[6]     In deciding this claim, I have also taken into consideration and also in the hearing of this claim, Guideline 4 which is the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-related Persecution. That’s the name of the guideline.

[7]     Now, having said that, the nexus in this case is membership in a particular social group as gender for you, Miss XXXX and also under the ground of religion for being imputed to be an apostate or an infidel or in other words, to be considered un-Islamic or non-conforming to the religion and as for the children, that would be as family, also membership in a particular social group as family of an apostate or mortad(ph) mother as some may say it.

[8]     Now, also with respect to the allegations, these I will summarize very quickly. They are found in the Basis of Claim Form and I won’t go through all of them, just to say that, you were all living in Egypt until you came to Canada on the XXXX XXXX XXXX of 2017, at which time you made a claim for refugee protection at an in-land office.

[9]     The troubles for you started around 2015 when at a social function, the principal claimant met extremists from the Muslim Brotherhood Party. These were women who would upon socially meeting other women, if they found that they were not Islamic enough or were not wearing the hijab, they would then start to see them socially and then commence with indoctrinating them or pushing them become more Islamic.

[10]   If they did not become more Islamic and conform to the Sharia law as these women, these two women, XXXX(sp) and XXXX(sp), were having the principal claimant do, then they would proceed to make threats and this is what happened in this case.

[11]   So, it started with criticizing your laughing, your way of talking and the clothes you wore or the lack of wearing the hijab and then later, it became that you should be wearing not just the hijab but the niqab and then there were attacks on your eldest son – sorry – first on your second son, then on the eldest son. Those attacks came later but all of these attacks resulted in serious physical injuries, as well as, the psychological injuries that accompanied those attacks.

[12]   There were also attacks to your car whereby you were purposefully hit by another car. Your car was hit by another car and that became a hit and run and then these threats continued.

[13]   There were a number of paper threats, letters, notes that were left for you, including, on one occasion, bleach was left with the threat of what that meant and how that would be used to disfigure you.

[14]   There were very insulting threats and also these were said to your sons, as well as, phone threats and these phone threats have continued too in Egypt and your husband has tried to stop them by saying that he is separated from you and is not in contact with the family, doesn’t know where they are. Okay?

[15]   So, with respect to your credibility, I have found that you have testified in a very credible manner and you’ve provided your testimony in a spontaneous way without any embellishments or contradictions and there were no discrepancies between your evidence and the documents and that also goes for the, any testimony given by your sons when I’ve asked them questions.

[16]   There’s also much of what you said is consistent with some of the documentary material with respect to how these extremists try to indoctrinate or make people be more Islamic and in Counsel’s package of Exhibit 10, there is much information from the Guardian which is considered, in my opinion, to be a reliable publication and it speaks there about how the current government of El-sisi is having to deal with these extremists and how he’s walking a tightrope because he was not the party that represented the, that was Dr. Morsi. He was not of the one that represented the Islamic side or the Muslim Brotherhood. But I’ll get to that shortly. 

[17]   So, with respect to your credibility, I have concluded that you are credible witnesses and, therefore, I accept what you’ve alleged in your Basis of Claim Form as credible and I just wanted to speak about, with respect to what is considered under the ground of religion that I think you fall into in that you have a non-conforming religious, non-conforming to the religion view of or way of life. You do not – when you were in Egypt, would not wear the hijab, let alone the niqab.

[18]   You also said that you were brought up in a quite a liberal Islamic fashion. Both your parents were educated. Your mother, I believe, taught English literature. You went to a Catholic school where a lot of Christians were in your school. A lot of them were Muslims too because you said you were upper class and you had, that was considered to be a good education to go to these Christians schools. So, you went there.

[19]   You also would go by a Christian church as your mother did and light a candle and you do that here in Canada. But you have views of having Christian friends and celebrating Christmas and things that are not considered to be Islamic.

[20]   Whether they knew that or these women became aware of that is not clear but that doesn’t negate the fact that these women did not find you Islamic enough with what they did know and from, because of that, they decided they were going to make you more and when that wasn’t working, they were then using threats and following you and had you transferred to another job and then had somebody there follow you and push you down the stairs. So, you yourself, also encountered physical threats.

[21]   According to the documentary material, the documentary material speaks about how, just how religious a country Egypt is and how an expression of not following what some would perceive to be very religious, is an expression of one’s religion or non-belief also.

[22]   It also indicates that in Egypt, it is often the case where, if women aren’t wearing the hijab they are, there’s a lot of sexual harassment that goes on. Where a report, I think it was Amnesty International – no – there’s a report done whereby 99% of the women, at least 99% had stated they had been sexually harassed.

[23]   So, somebody’s always saying something, it would appear but also going further, if one is perceived to not be Islamic enough, to be possibly atheist if a person is not Islamic enough, then because there are expectations of people going to prayer and non-believers are not treated very well in Egypt.

[24]   If they are regarded as apostates, given that apostacy is considered a crime in Egypt, then a person that doesn’t follow the social or religious morays could be considered to be doing something very wrong, a crime, it could be.

[25]   But you’re not at that point where you’re being accused of being an atheist. You’re not there. But what is serious, in my opinion, is that you are not considered to be Islamic enough and even though the Muslim Brotherhood members have been sought after by the current government and this current government has been trying to find supporters or sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood and rule, like, deal with them, nevertheless, this did continue to occur to you while El-sisi was in power, before you left the country and this has continued, these same people because they have managed, these women, to continue to try to do what they were doing to you.

[26]   Therefore, I think that you did go to the police and try to get them to write a report and they did not want to write one because it was the Islamic Brotherhood and that was at the time when it was no longer Morsi in power. It was El-sisi and the documentary material in the NDP package, which is Exhibit 6, it spoke there in Sections 1, 2 and 12, about the serious possibility of violence, harassment and persecution at the hands of the Muslim community, of the State and of also, extremist groups to persons who are perceived as non-Islamic or apostate and also anyone who they believe has insulted the religion.

[27]   I do not believe, under the current regime, that you would find help or assistance by the State to get protected because of your own experience but also because of what the documentary material speaks about, the human rights situation in Egypt, how it’s continuing to deteriorate and how the authorities have arbitrarily restricted the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly and many other rights and also, I’m aware that the current government is in a way, he’s facing a – the government’s facing a difficult situation between, there was a very large group that supported the more Islamic view and according to the documentary material, he is walking that tightrope between the more theological side.

[28]   The documentary material also speaks about, in cases with respect to women where it had to do with sexual assault in Egypt, was underreported and they tried to bring in a law to make it a crime. However, not sexual assault but they’ve made sexual harassment a crime as that occurs so much. But they made the law so restrictive, whereby a woman had to provide two witnesses and they had to get them to the police, get the perpetrator to the police and it became to onerous, according to Human Rights Watch at Item 10.1 of the documentary material.

[29]   Therefore, given all of this, that you could be imputed as being a religious non-conformist or an apostate and given that I believe your sons have experienced what would amount to persecution, in my view, because you are their mother and that you yourself have experienced that through the threats, the harassment, assault on you and the psychological turmoil that this has caused you, seeing how your sons are being attacked because of this situation with you, I do not believe that you would get help, that there is adequate state protection for you or any of you in Egypt and I also don’t believe you could go live anywhere else in the country to be safe because it is the same laws and the same, this network of these extremists is very large and you did try to move elsewhere and they found out about it.

[30]   Therefore, for all these reasons, I find that the four of you are Convention refugees and I, therefore, accept your claims.

[31]   Do you understand?

[32]   Thank you and thanks, Mr. Interpreter, for all your help today.

[33]   INTERPRETER: As always the pleasure was mine.

[34]   MEMBER: Thank you. Good day to you all. Good day, Counsel.

[35]   This hearing is now concluded. ———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 171
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 27, 2019
Panel: M.J. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sherif R Ashamalla
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-16851
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-16861
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000507-000518

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]     These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimants are married spouses, 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.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]     The allegations in this case are found in the male claimant’s (principal claimant) Basis of Claim (BOC) form which will be summarized.

[3]     The problems for these claimants commenced when the male claimant stood by and defended his Christian friends before a customary council session on 16 September 2016. The customary council was convened to settle a sectarian dispute between his Christian friends and Muslim tenants of the property owned by one of the friends. Many of those present were Salafists who follow a stricter, literalist and more puritanical interpretation of Islam. The customary council session was to determine the sectarian dispute between the male claimant’s friends, the Christian brothers, one of whom was the property owner and his two tenants who were also brothers, and the Christian guard, whom the Christian brothers defended against the aggression of the Muslim tenants. In the altercation that ensued, one of the Muslim tenants was struck with the iron skewer he used to threaten the house guard. The Christian owner had taken the skewer from the tenant and beat him with it allegedly in self defense. The tenant later died in hospital a few days later. The police made several arrests of the involved parties. Given the appearance of sectarian strife, the case was transferred to a customary council to adjudicate the dispute. The claimant was invited to attend the last session of the customary council. Members of a Salafist Jihadi group, one of the most radical groups in Egypt, were part of the customary council. Also present were the head of the Security Department in the Red Sea Governorate and the head of the National Security Department and the Salafist radical group was forcing the authorities to accept their point of view. In their view, it was unacceptable that a Christian was the offender who victimized a Muslim.

[4]     The claimant expressed his opinion which opposed that of the Salafists and he was on the side of his Christian friends. It was the council that decided that the Christian offenders would pay the victim’s family in compensation for the death, the amount of two million Egyptian pounds was fined. The claimant’s position on the side of his Christian friends, given that he was a Muslim, angered a famous radical Muslim named XXXX XXXX. He accusingly asked the claimant if he was a Muslim or a Christian, which the claimant understood is a serious accusation in Egypt. The claimant also accused the council of unfairness and criticized the way they interpreted the Islamic religion. In response, Mr. XXXX XXXX became angry and approached the claimant and told him that he must reconsider his opinions against Islam or they will consider him an apostate. The claimant replied saying, “You are the ones that do not relate to Islam at all; you order a compensation of two million Egyptian pounds, for an accidental death by self-defence. This is not fair.” XXXX XXXX then threatened the claimant saying that they will find him even if he goes to the end of the world as they have people everywhere in Egypt and they will teach him right from wrong. The claimant took this as a threat that they would hurt him. Later in February 2017, he was contacted by this radical group and they threatened him and his wife because of her not wearing the Muslim dress. The claimant responded that they would not be able to hurt either him or his wife as they have a strong police department in Egypt that would protect them. In April while walking with his wife in Giza, they were assaulted and beaten by young people. During the attack one of the assailants stated “XXXX XXXX is telling you, hypocrite, apostate, that you are condemned by the rule of apostasy, you and your wife both. You know what apostasy means, this time we beat you, next time we slaughter both of you.” After receiving medical treatment for their injuries they had a lawyer file a report with the police on their behalf regarding the assault both claimants had suffered; however, as the issue was seen as a sectarian issue, it would have to be reported to the commanding officer and any report made would have to first be approved by the National Security authorities. The officer advised the lawyer to tell the claimants to stay away from Cairo for a couple of days because of the high risk that members of the radical group would find them. The claimant gave his lawyer power of attorney to file a case against the person known as XXXX XXXX and the claimants moved around Egypt hiding among friends to avoid the radical persons looking for them.

[5]     The case was filed on May 21, 2017and the court set a date for a hearing on July 1, 2017. The court also ordered the police to investigate the matter and although they did not find XXXX XXXX, the claimant received threatening calls again and he was advised by his lawyer to flee the country and not return to Egypt. He fled to the USA on XXXX XXXX, 2017 where he stayed with a friend while his lawyer in Egypt arranged the translation of the claimant’s documents to be presented at his hearing. While waiting the month that it took for the translation, the male claimant continued to receive threatening calls on his Egyptian phone number. He also communicated with his wife using the internet. They decided to turn off their respective phones. The male claimant travelled to Canada by air on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and his wife arrived on XXXX XXXX, 2017 from Egypt, from where she had been in hiding with a friend. They subsequently made a claim for refugee protection. They fear that if they return to Egypt, the Salafist group members will find them and carry out their threats.

DETERMINATION

[6]     The panel finds that the male claimant is a Convention refugee. However, the panel finds that the female claimant is not a Convention refugee. The panel’s reasons for the respective and different determinations are as follows.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]     The panel finds that the claimants are both nationals of Egypt. The male claimant is Egyptian by his birth in Egypt and the female claimant by naturalization in 2012. This has been established by their testimony and by the supporting documentation filed, namely their respective Egyptian passports found in Exhibit 1, and from this evidence the panel concludes, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants each have Egyptian citizenship.

[8]     However, in the case of the female claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, the panel determines that she is also a citizen of the Philippines by her birth in that country. It is merely a formality for her to swear an oath of allegiance and she would be considered a dual citizen by the government of the Philippines.

Nexus

[9]     In this case, the nexus to the definition is the imputed religion or lack of Islamic faith of the claimants, but primarily that of Mr. XXXX who came to the attention of a radical Salafist Jihadi group by his defense of his Coptic Christian friends who were one of the parties in a sectarian dispute. The nexus is the same for Ms. XXXX in that she is seen to be non-conforming, or not Islamic enough by her not wearing the Islamic dress despite being a convert from Christianity to Islam.

[10]   The documentary material in the National Documentation Package in sections 1, 2, and 12 speaks about the serious possibility of violence, harassment, and persecution at the hands of the Muslim community of the State and also extremist groups to persons who are perceived as non-Islamic or apostate which I mentioned before or anyone who insults the religion.

[11]   According to the claimants’ evidence, they seem to understand that they were being accused of not being Islamic enough by not wearing the Hijab in the case of Ms. XXXX as well as by having the Christian friends whom you defended against a Muslim in a dispute. The male claimant believes that as retribution for defending Christians against a Muslim, he may be accused of apostasy or treated as an apostate.

[12]   Furthermore, with respect to Ms. XXXX, by not wearing the Islamic dress, such as the hijab, she was considered not Islamic enough and therefore there would be consequences according to this radical group that was sending her husband these threats and the consequences would be for her as well as for her spouse by his not insisting or not making her conform and wear the attire the Salafist radical group, deemed necessary.

Credibility

[13]   The panel found the claimants to be credible witnesses. They provided their answers at this hearing without embellishment and they answered all the questions without discrepancies in their evidence. Their responses were consistent with the Basis of Claim form and with the other evidence in this case. Many questions were asked and their forthright responses assisted in establishing their credibility in a favourable manner. Therefore, as they were found to be credible witnesses, the panel accepts their allegations as credible.

State protection in Egypt

[14]   The documentary material clearly indicates that anybody who is perceived to be a non­ believer in Egypt or a non-conformist to the social or religious mores, or someone who is perceived to not have faith is considered to have breached the social or religious mores and in some cases not perhaps in this case where they have not been accused of apostasy although the male claimant was threatened that he would be, but in other cases where persons have been accused of apostasy, that actually reaches the level of being considered a crime.

[15]   The documentary material Exhibit 4, Sections 1, 2 and 12 speaks about the serious possibility of violence or harassment and persecution at the hands of the Muslim community by extremists groups to persons who they perceive to be non-Islamic or apostate or anyone whom they perceive to have insulted the religion.

[16]   The documentary material found in both the (NDP) National Documentary Package and, counsel’s package of Exhibits 8 and 9, speaks about the human rights situation in Egypt which has deteriorated and continues to deteriorate.

[17]   In Item 2.2, the annual report by Amnesty International titled, Egypt 2017/2018 speaks about the human rights situation as it continues to deteriorate and about how the human rights crisis continued unabated. The authorities used torture and other ill treatment and enforced disappearance against hundreds of people and dozens were extra judicially executed with impunity. While in previous years the authorities had arbitrarily restricted the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, they escalated the crackdown of civil society by subjecting NGO staff to additional interrogations, travel bans and the freezing of assets. Arbitrary arrests and detentions which were then followed by grossly unfair trials of government critics, peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights defenders. These acts by authorities occurred routinely. In some cases detainees in political cases or government opponents were held in prolonged detention without charge or trial. In general, many human rights groups throughout the world believe that the Egyptian authorities have misused many of their powers against their own citizens.

[18]   According to Item 2.2 of Exhibit 4, the latest Amnesty report regarding the exercise of freedom of religion, the authorities continued to violate this freedom by discriminating against Christians and there was continued impunity for sectarian attacks on Christian communities with the authorities relying on customary reconciliation and settlements agreed by local authorities and religious leaders. The violence by non-state actors against Christians increased significantly given the impunity by the authorities. While the claimants are not Christians, they are perceived as non-Muslims or apostates because the male claimant is taking the side of Christians over Muslims and his wife does not conform to the Islamic dress in public.

[19]   The panel finds that the claimant would not receive protection from the Egyptian authorities under the current regime and given their past experience and according to what the documentary material states about the human rights situation in Egypt. It has continued to deteriorate and the authorities arbitrarily restricted the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and many other civil rights. Despite the semblance of legal court action in the claimant’s case against XXXX XXXX, the police had previously refused to take a report and advised him through his lawyer, to flee the area and not to risk being found by the Jihadists. Therefore, their actions of commencing an investigation were only initiated by the court ordering it. The police, as an arm of the Egyptian government do not seem able to protect the claimants based on the preponderance of material from the NDP and particularly Item 2.7., which speaks about the growth of Jihadists groups in Egypt, some with ties to ISIS. Furthermore, when a charge of apostasy is brought against someone or a charge of denigration of religions, the treatment meted out by the police can be considered to be persecutory. In Item 12.1, at page 10 it states the following, regarding such treatment:

[20]   In August police arrested and interrogated a man whom they alleged had converted from Islam to Christianity. Police released him, reportedly telling him he was too old to withstand the treatment they ordinarily would give to apostates from Islam, according to sources.

Internal Flight Alternative

[21]   The claimants cannot go elsewhere in the country to stay safe without having to hide because they would face the same possibility or serious grounds of persecution throughout the entire country as the radical Jihadists are found throughout all of Egypt according to the preponderance of the documentary materials.

The Philippines – Female Claimant’s Second Country of Reference

[22]   According to Williams¹ a claimant may be considered to be a national of a country where the evidence establishes that it is within their control to acquire the citizenship of that country. If there is an automatic right to citizenship in that country under the law, if there is no discretion on the part of the Philippine government to refuse her citizenship and if the claimant can re-acquire Philippine citizenship by requirements that are mere formalities, then the claim can be assessed against the Philippines. Furthermore, if the claimant has no well-founded fear of persecution in that country of nationality then the claim for refugee status will be denied.

[23]   The female claimant is a naturalized citizen of Egypt as of 2012. She was born in the Philippines and had that citizenship since her birth to at least one Filipino citizen. The matter of dual citizenship is addressed in Item 3.5 of the National Documentation Package.² According to the information contained in this document, the claimant was a dual citizen of the Philippines and Egypt as a result of the passage in 2003 of Republic Act (RA) 9225. This document states the following at page 2:

How does one reacquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225?

Natural-born Filipinos who lost their Filipino citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country may re-acquire Philippine citizenship by taking the Philippine Oath of Allegiance before a duly authorized Philippine official. The Philippine Oath of Allegiance does not require a person to renounce his allegiance to any other country.

[24]   Section 3 of the Republic Act No. 9225, which was passed on 29 August 2003, states the following:

Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship – Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization of citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship” upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

“I________, solemny (sic) swear (or affrim) (sic) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”³

[25]   The previously-mentioned Act further states that:

Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.

State Protection in the Philippines

[26]   The female claimant stated she fears returning to the Philippines as she fears that her family members will cause her problems. They have rejected her since they learned of her conversion to Islam in 2005 after she told her mother of the conversion when she was to marry her spouse, a Muslim. She had converted in 1996 and returned to the Philippines in 2004 but had not told anyone of her conversion fearing their rejection. When she was to marry she told her mother that she was marrying a Muslim and was asked why a Muslim. Then when she told her mother that she had converted she was not accepted. Her cousin XXXX in the Philippines, who does not care about the conversion was told to tell the claimant that she is a Muslim and she has nothing in the Philippines. The claimant understood that to mean that she is not to receive any inheritance as a result and that they have divided up any money that there was and have purposely excluded her from receiving a share. Furthermore, the female claimant believed that her Muslim marriage would not be recognized in the Philippines and thus it would need to be registered but would not be allowed to register it. The panel has no evidence that a Muslim marriage would not be registered in the Philippines. On the contrary, having consulted Exhibit 5, the NDP for the Philippines dated 30 April 2018, at Item 12.1 the International Religious Freedom Report indicates that about 10 to 12 percent of the population was estimated in 2012 to be Muslim. The majority of Muslims reside in Mindanao and nearby islands in the south with an increasing number of Muslims migrating to the urban centers of Manila and Cebu. The female claimant’s family live in Iloilo City which is a one hour flight from Manila. The claimant has not rebutted the presumption of state protection regarding the Philippines should any family member try to cause her harm due to her conversion to Islam. Even if they were to learn of the claimant being in the Philippines and were to travel there to locate her, the panel finds that there would be adequate state protection for her in the Philippines.

[27]   States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, except in situations where they are in a state of complete breakdown4. From the documentary evidence,⁵ the panel finds that the Philippines, regardless of its current political, economic, cultural and social problems, is not a state that is close to a complete breakdown. Consequently, the presumption that it is capable of protecting its citizens applies.⁶ According to the documentary evidence, the Philippines is a functioning multiparty, constitutional republic and a democracy. Therefore the presumption that the state is capable of protecting its citizens supersedes the principle that international protection should be sought. Where a state is in effective control of its territory, has police and civil authority in place and makes serious effort to protect its citizens, the mere fact that the state’s efforts are not always successful will not rebut the presumption of state protection.⁷

Burden of Proof

[28]   Absent an admission by the state of its inability to protect the claimant (the evidence in this regard is silent), the burden of proof is on the claimant to show through “clear and convincing” evidence the state’s inability to protect her and thus successfully rebut the presumption of state protection.⁸ Such evidence could be past personal incidents in which state protection did not materialize or evidence of similarly-situated persons let down by state protection mechanisms. Failing this, the claimant could provide reliable and probative evidence that satisfies the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), on a balance of probabilities, that the state protection in the Philippines respectively, is inadequate.⁹

[29]   There is legislation in the Philippines, known as Republic (RA) 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, which criminalizes violence within intimate relationships and the family. Response to Information Request number PHL105113.E¹⁰ reports about the efforts that government agencies have made to address the issue of violence against women and provide state protection. It speaks about the governmental agencies, mechanisms and support services in place to deal with this type of violence. It explains the different restraining orders such as the Barangay protection order, the temporary protection order and the permanent protection order. An Ombudsman is present in the country to deal with complaints when victims feel that the authorities have treated them unfairly.¹¹ The government has taken measures to deal with violence against women and therefore has demonstrated a willingness to deal with this issue. Moreover, it appears that their efforts have been reasonably effective on an operational level. Consequently, while the protection provided by state authorities in the Philippines may not be perfect, it is adequate in the panel’s opinion.

CONCLUSION

[30]   Based on the foregoing reasons, the panel finds that, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a Convention refugee. Also based on the foregoing reasons, in the protection claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the panel finds that she is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, given the panel’s finding that there is state protection available to her in the Philippines, her second country of reference. Furthermore, she has not rebutted the presumption of state protection in the Philippines, as required.

[31]   Thus, the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX is rejected and the panel finds that she is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[32]   The panel further finds that the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Convention refugee and his claim is allowed.

(signed) M.J. Vega

1  Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Williams, 2005 FCA 126

2 Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package (NDP) Index for Philippines, version 30 April 2018, Item 3.5, Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. R.A. 9225/ Dual Citizenship.

3 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) Index for Philippines, version 29 April 2016, Item 3.3, Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, Republic Act No. 9225

4 Villafranca: M.E.I. v. Villafranca, Ignacio (F.C.A., no. A-69-90), Marceau, Hugessen, decary, December 18, 1992. Reported: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca, (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.).

5  Exhibit 11, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Cyprus, version 20 June 2016.

6  Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4^th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 709.

7 Villafranca: ME.I. v. Villafranca, Ignacio (F.C.A.,no. A-69-90), Marceau, Hugessen, decary, December 18, 1992. Reported: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca, (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.).

8 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4^th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 724.

9  Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.). para 30.

10 Exhibit 5, NDP Index, Item 5.1, Response to Information Request PHL105113.E.

11 Exhibit 5, NDP Index, Item 2.1, U.S. Department of State Report for the Philippines for 2017

Citation: 2019 RLLR 168
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Panel: Roslyn Ahara
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Aleksandr Radin
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-03190
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-03249, TB8-03250
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000400- 000405

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]     XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the principal claimant, hereinafter referred to as the P.C.), her minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX all citizens of Egypt, are claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (IRPA).

[2]     The P.C. consented to act as designated representative on behalf of her minor children.

EXPEDITED PROCESS

[3]     Paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA 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.¹ Further, subsection 162(2) of the IRPA 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. The claimants’ claims were identified as those that could be processed through the RPD expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimants’ signed certificates of readiness for the expedited process on July 0, 2018.² Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that these claims meet the criteria for the expedited determination. These claims have therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.³

ALLEGATIONS

[4]     The claimants’ allegations are described in detail in their Basis of Claim Forms (BOC). However, they can be summarized as follows.

[5]     Although the P.C. was born in Kuwait, she is not a Permanent Resident there, but rather is a citizen of Egypt. She was born as a Sunni Muslim but converted to Christianity. Her children were baptized Christian. The P.C.’s in-laws disapproved of her desire to convert. In fact, her sister-in-law threatened that the family would put her in a psychiatric hospital where she would be killed.

[6]     The P.C.’s husband explained that Kuwaiti authorities would not help, but in fact they might accuse her of inciting sectarian strife and destabilizing the country and she could be killed under Sharia law.

[7]     On XXXX XXXX 2016, the P.C. took her children to Turkey thinking it was a secular state, but found it was not. In XXXX 2017, the P.C. returned to Kuwait to apply for a Canadian visa. It was denied, however, since she had a US visa, she entered Canada via the U.S.

DETERMINATION

[8]     I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.

ANALYSIS

Identities

[9]     The claimants’ identities have been established as per their Egyptian passports, birth certificates and marriage contracts. In fact, they submitted copious documents to prove that they are whom they allege to be.

Credibility

[10]   In addition to the identity documents, the P.C. has submitted a certificate in which it indicates that the P.C.’s sister-in-law’s husband works with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As well, the claimants have provided country documents with respect to the treatment of individuals who convert to Christianity.

[11]   The panel has reviewed the claimants’ evidence and finds that it is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible or contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Egypt.

[12]   The panel finds that the claimants have established that there is a serious possibility of suffering serious harm should they return to Egypt due to their identity as Christian convert.

[13]   This finding is supported by the national documentary evidence proffered by the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board).⁴ Objective evidence indicates that abuses of Christians were increasing even before the fall of the Mubarak regime. Christian property, including homes, businesses, and churches, have been destroyed, and Christians have been the primary target 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.⁵

[14]   The United States Department of State reports that Egypt is a republic governed by an elected president. The last elections, both presidential and legislative, have been described by election monitors as having respected the national legislation on electoral matters. On the other hand, these same monitors have expressed serious reservations regarding the restrictions imposed by government authorities during the election campaigns, particularly with regard to freedom of expression and association.⁶ Nevertheless, despite these restrictions, the panel is of the view that the presumption of state protection is applicable in this case.⁷

[15]   The constitution adopted in 2014 guarantees freedom of religion and expressly recognizes the right of Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, to practise their religion and to build their places of worship. It also recognizes the right to equality before the law and stipulates that discrimination and incitement to hatred are prohibited by law. It is reported, however, that the provisions of the new constitution are slow to be implemented. In fact, it is not so much the legal framework that is deficient, but rather the application by the institutions of laws and regulations that is greatly deficient.⁸

[16]   The evidence reveals that Christians represent 5 to 10 percent of the Egyptian population. Of these, 90 percent are Coptic Christians. The documentary evidence indicates that Coptic Christians have experienced and continue to experience discrimination and intimidation because of their religious beliefs, particularly in areas where there are many Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Over time, they have also been the target of sectarian violence.⁹

[17]   Admittedly, it is reported that this violence has decreased following the incidents that shook the Coptic community during the year 2013 and that the Head of State has continued the rapprochement he had begun with the members of the community following these incidents.¹⁰ However, it is reported that to this day, tensions, discrimination, and the threat of violence remain a constant problem. Coptic Christians have been the target of harassment and attacks on their property. It is also reported that they have been the victims of a large number of assaults of all kinds, as well as prosecution for blasphemy, proselytizing, and denigration of religion.¹¹ Violent incidents and threats against the Copts in recent months do not seem to indicate an improvement in the situation.¹²

[18]   In recent years, a number of international human rights bodies have denounced the behaviour of police and judicial authorities towards members of the Coptic community. Indeed, either because of lack of means, or will, or because of their own involvement, it is reported that the police and judicial authorities do not intervene to protect Coptic Christians who are victims of criminal acts. These sources also denounce the use by government authorities of “customary reconciliation” sessions rather than legal proceedings to deal with cases of violence affecting members of religious minorities. This forces the victims to drop all formal charges in order to buy peace and to avoid any legal proceedings against the aggressors. This state of affairs, as well as the slowness shown by the authorities to prosecute the crimes committed against Coptic Christians, continue to foster an atmosphere of impunity.¹³

[19]   In light of the above, the panel finds that the claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an objective basis to their claims. In addition, the panel 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

[20]   The panel finds that there is no relevant Internal Flight Alternative in Egypt for individuals such as the claimants. The panel comes to that conclusion because, according to the above-cited documentary evidence, Christians are presently exposed to a constant risk of persecution wherever they may be located.

[21]   Accordingly, all claims are accepted.

(signed) ROSLYN AHARA

March 1, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 6.

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

4 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (29 June 2018).

5 Ibid., items 12.1 and 12.8,

6 Ibid., item 2.1.

7 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.

8  Ibid., item l2. l.

9 Ibid., item 12.1.

10 Ibid., item 12.6.

11 Ibid., item 12.6.

12 Ibid., item 2.4.

13 Ibid., items 12.1 and 12.6.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 186
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 27, 2020
Panel: Roman Kotovych
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A Kaminker
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-15854
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-13164, TB9-13232
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003305-003307

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I’ve heard your testimony. I’ve weighed your evidence. I’m going to give you an oral decision. You’re gonna get a transcript of these reasons at the address. There may be some small errors, I don’t see them before they get sent out.

[2]       Okay, I’ll tell you at the outset cause the reasons will take a few minutes to piece together that I’m accepting the claims today. So, I’m saying yes to all three of you.

[3]       CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[4]       MEMBER: You’re welcome.

[5]       And these are my reasons for decision. Apologies if I mispronounce your names. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the claimants, seek refugee protection under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[6]       INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Your Honor. Should I translate simultaneous.

[7]       MEMBER: If you can, that would be great.

[8]       INTERPRETER: Yes, yes I can.

[9]       MEMBER: Thank you. So, then she’ll join you in the back and explain as we’re going along. Okay.

[10]     The claimants allegations are summarized in their Basis of Claim forms. In summary, they’re alleged to be an Egyptian father, mother and adult son also with Sudanese citizenship seeking protection from persecution on the basis of their Christian Evangelical faith in both countries.

[11]     I find that you are Convention refugees for the following reasons.

[12]     First, on the issue of identity. I find that you’ve established your personal identities and citizenships. I find you’ve also established your religious identities as Christians. I was presented with copies of Egyptian and Sudanese passports for all three of you, as well as original birth certificates, marriage certificate and church documents. I find on a balance of probabilities this establishes your identities.

[13]     There is a Nexus of religion under Section 96 in this case. Ma’am, you’ve also raised a, an added gender element based on your fear of living as a woman and a Christian in these countries, which I’ve also considered.

[14]     I find you’ve adequately established on a balance of probabilities your risk of harm returning or risk of persecution returning to both Egypt and Sudan. I found the testimonies to be credible today. You testified as to your backgrounds in these countries, your religious identities, your particular experiences. And why you left when you did.

[15]     I did have some questions about failure to claim in, on several opportunities, as well as why you delayed leaving over so many years. I found the explanations reasonable in the circumstances. While you Sir, did testify as to why you didn’t take advantage of claiming in Europe and while there still is an element there of failure to claim, the explanation was reasonable in the entirety of the circumstances. It’s outweighed by and your explanation is bolstered by the objective evidence. And that in and of itself is insufficient to outweigh everything that you’ve told me.

[16]     I’ve also considered your explanations as to the escalating nature of the harm. And why you were willing to remain in these countries for the time that you did. You also testified as to why you fear having a forward­ looking harm. And while there have been political changes in these countries, the best evidence that I have as to the current situation is the country conditions in the NDP, the country conditions provided by counsel and your own testimony as to the situation in both of these countries.

[17]     And based on that evidence and with nothing else compelling or credible before me to say that the circumstances have changed sufficiently, that is the evidence that I am relying on. And I find that evidence objectively justifiable and credible.

[18]     So, having considered all the evidence including your testimonies, I find that you’ve established a serious possibility of harm returning to either country on the basis of your Christian faith.

[19]     On the issues of internal flight alternative and state protection, I find that these do not apply in the circumstances as it is the State that you fear in both cases. As well, while there’s a societal element but also the State in both countries, it would be unreasonable for you to approach the State for protection.

[20]     I also note that given some of the continued impunity against Christians in these countries, that that further points to the un-, inability or unwillingness of the State to protect Christians. Or in any event, insufficiently to protect your open practice in these countries.

[21]     On the issue of internal flight alternative, I don’t have an alternative to point to where you would not face a serious possibility of harm. You testified as to why you feel you would not be able to relocate within these countries. And I find sufficient evidence from what I have before me that the risk would continue throughout both of these countries. As such, the IFA test fails on the first prong. And I find no internal flight alternative for you. For all these reasons, I find that you would face a serious possibility of harm in both of your countries of reference.

[22]     For this reason, I find all three of you to be Convention refugees under the IRPA. And I therefore accept your claims.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2020 RLLR 182
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 21, 2020
Panel: Randa Mekhael
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-33493
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-33535, TB9-33715
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001021-001024

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their son 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]       The claimants allege that they are a devout Coptic Christian family of Egyptian nationality who describe a number of incidents of intimidation, harassment, and assault at the hands of Muslim extremists as a result of their faith. They fear persecution at the hands of Muslim extremists as a result of their religious identity as Coptic Christians and have thus filed claims for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

[5]       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

[6]       I find that their respective identities as nationals of Egypt are established by the documents provided: their passports,ⁱ and birth certificates.ⁱⁱ

[7]       They have also established their identity as Coptic Christians by providing birth certificates, baptism certificates, national identity cards, marriage certificate and supporting letters from the Coptic Orthodox Churches in Egypt and Canada.ⁱⁱⁱ

Nexus

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

Credibility

[9]       Based on the documents in the file, there no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above, namely that the claimants are of the Coptic Christian faith. After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Objective basis of future risk

[l0]      The claimants’ subjective fear of persecution is objectively well founded. Information in the National Documentation Package (NDP) confirms that abuse of Coptic Christians was 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.^iv

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.^v  I find that based on the claimants’ evidence when considered in conjunction with the objective evidence, is a clear and convincing rebuttal of the presumption of state protection.

Internal flight alternative

[12]     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.

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 elsewhere.^vi As such, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative in Egypt for this claim.

CONCLUSION

[13]     Having considered the evidence, I find there is a serious possibility that the claimants would be persecuted upon return to Egypt because of their Coptic Christian identities. I conclude that the claimants are Convention refugees. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

(signed)                       R. Mekhael

February 21, 2020

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

ii Exhibit 5 – Personal Documents

iii Ibid.

iv Exhibit 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.

v Supra note 4, tab 12.8.

vi 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: 2020 RLLR 181
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 11, 2020
Panel: K. Khamsi
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Samir N Roman
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-24867
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-24931, TB9-24950, TB9-24951
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001017-001020

REASONS FOR DECISION

 INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 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]       The certificate of readiness was received by the Board on November 28, 2019.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       You allege the following:

[5]       You have been discriminated in Egypt because of your religion,

[6]       You have been targeted in Egypt by Muslim extremist who asked you to convert to Islam,

[7]       You have been threatened to be killed if you do not convert to Islam.

DETERMINATION

[8]       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

[9]       I find that your identities as nationals of Egypt is established by the documents provided such as your Egyptian passports.

Nexus

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

Credibility

[11]     Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes your profile as Coptic Christians, and the allegations as set out above are corroborated by country conditions evidence. After reviewing the documents relating to your religion, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Objective basis of future risk

[12]     I find that the risk you allege is objectively well-founded in the documentary evidence: NDP for Egypt – September 30, 2019 – which reveals that Coptic Christians are persecuted and discriminated in Egypt and that they continue to be the target of sectarian violence.

State protection

[13]     I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case as the above cited evidence show that the police and authorities in Egypt do not always intervene to protect Christians who are victims of violent acts.

Internal flight alternative

[14]     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.

CONCLUSION

[15]     Based on the analysis above, I conclude that you are convention refugees. Accordingly, I accept your claims.

(signed)           K. KHAMSI