TC0-11847

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-11847 TC0-11848 / TC0-11849 / TC0-11850 TC0-11851 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 8, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Jillan Sadek Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Monique Ann Ashamalla Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION

OVERVIEW [1] The Principal Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, her husband, the Associate Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their children, the minor Appellants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are all citizens of Egypt. The youngest child, XXXX XXXX XXXX, was born in the United States in 2012 and is therefore also an American citizen. [2] The Associate and minor Appellants base their claims on the allegations of the Principal Appellant. [3] The Appellants are Coptic Christians. The Principal Appellant alleges that she and her family cannot return to Egypt because she was targeted by a Salafist man, XXXX XXXX, his brother and father, because she interfered with his attempt to marry a Coptic woman, XXXX, who she had met at her church. [4] The Principal Appellant alleges that through her activities at her church, she met a young woman named XXXX. In XXXX 2014, XXXX informed the Principal Appellant that a Muslim man, named XXXX XXXX, wished to marry her but that he came from a "traditional extremist" Muslim background. The Principal Appellant states that she tried to talk XXXX out of continuing with the relationship. [5] The Principal Appellant alleges that on XXXX XXXX, 2014, she received a phone call from XXXX XXXX during which he blamed her for XXXX's decision not to marry him and he vowed to take his revenge. On XXXX XXXX, 2014, the

Principal Appellant alleges she was approached by a woman wearing a niqab, XXXX XXXX and one other man. The three allegedly threatened the Principal Appellant; the woman in the niqab allegedly punched her in the face, she was kicked, pushed to the ground, and the gold cross she was wearing around her neck was forcibly torn from her neck. [6] The Principal Appellant and her American-born child travelled to the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2014. The Principal Appellant's husband and other children joined them there later. They claimed asylum in the United States. However, they withdrew their claim prior to receiving a decision. [7] On XXXX XXXX, 2015, the Appellants returned to Egypt. Two years later, on XXXX XXXX, 2017 the father of XXXX XXXX called the Principal Appellant and informed her that his son would soon be released from jail and that he would exact his revenge. The Principal Appellant first took refuge at her aunt's house and then at her sister-in-law's house but her alleged persecutors were able to track her there and threw rocks at the balcony of the residence on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [8] The Principal Appellant and her children travelled to Canada using the valid visas which they had applied for in XXXX 2017. They arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and claimed asylum six weeks later, on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The Associate Appellant (husband of the Principal Appellant) came

to Canada the following year and claimed asylum on XXXX XXXX, 2018. Their claims were joined. [9] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) determined that the Principal Appellant's allegations were not credible. The RPD also determined that no allegations of risk had been made against the United States with regard to the youngest child. [10] The Appellants assert that the RPD erred in requiring corroborative evidence, that it misapprehended the evidence and made unfounded findings regarding documentary fraud. The Appellants also argue that the RPD did not apply the Board's Gender Guidelines and Code of Conduct correctly and failed to properly assess their risk pursuant to section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [11] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1

DECISION [12] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD's finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was correct. The determinative issue is the lack of credibility of the allegations.

REQUEST FOR A HEARING DENIED [13] In terms of an oral hearing, there must be new evidence, described in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA admitted on appeal and the criteria outlined in 110(6) of the IRPA must also be met. This means that the new evidence must raise a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; this serious issue must be central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; and that, if accepted, this serious issue of credibility would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [14] In the present case, no new evidence has been submitted or admitted, therefore, I may not hold an oral hearing.

ANALYSIS [15] I have attentively listened to the recording of the RPD hearing and have carefully reviewed the entire record. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's allegations are not credible. Allegations of bias, failure to follow the Gender Guidelines and failure to comply with the IRB Member Code of Conduct [16] I will address the Appellant's most serious arguments first, as they allege the RPD member failed to respect the principles of natural justice and the Board's own guidelines. Allegations of bias [17] The Appellants assert that the RPD member was biased against them, because the member questioned the authenticity of the XXXX 2014 medical report. [18] The medical report in question is dated XXXX XXXX, 2014 and states the following: "The patient, XXXX XXXX XXXX, 30-years-old, was examined. After a thorough examination on XXXX XXXX, 2014, it was revealed that she endured severe beatings. This was verified by the bruises and scratches in several parts all over her body, especially, at the back of her as a result of pulling her chain. Additionally, she suffered severe XXXX measuring XXXX XXXX XXXX as a result of the beatings. This caused her shortness of breath, severe headache, blurriness in the eyes and severe pain in the body especially her chest, shoulders and back."2 [19] During the hearing, while examining the medical report, the RPD Member noted that he believed

it was irregular for a signature to appear on top of a stamp, as usually the stamps would be applied after a document was signed. However, in its reasons, the RPD did not mention having any doubts as to the authenticity of the document, stating only: "The panel notes the document confirms an incident but provides no confirmation of who may be the perpetrator except perhaps someone who may have assaulted the claimant to steal her chain. The panel further finds that this incident does not demonstrate any linkage to the alleged AOP (agent of persecution)."3 [20] The Appellants assert that the RPD's conduct in questioning the document at the hearing was evidence that the member was biased against them. In their Memorandum, it is written: "There is simply no objective evidence that might support the RPD's skepticism. The Appellants had the original with them, and offered it to the RPD who refused to see it but nevertheless proceeded to advance the baseless allegations. It is well within the Board's expertise that it is common practice to sign over a seal to evidence that an original signature has been provided after the seal is affixed. Instead of approaching the claims objectively, the RPD put the Appellants on the defensive for virtually every exchange throughout the hearing. The RPD's carriage of these claims created an appearance that it did not come to the hearing with an open

mind. The Appellants submit that the RPD exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias and failed to provide a fair and open hearing of their claims for protection."4 [21] I disagree with the Appellants. First of all, it should be noted that the hearing was held by video conference, so the Appellants' offer to show the 'original' to the Member was actually an offer to hold it up in front of the camera.5 The Member's scanned copy which he was showing to the Appellants by sharing his screen would undoubtedly have been clearer than someone holding a document up to a camera. The RPD member did not refuse to "see" the document as alleged. [22] Secondly, I have carefully listened to the entire hearing, and do not find that the Member's questioning demonstrated bias or a closed mind. It is not true that the RPD member "put the Appellants on the defensive for virtually every exchange throughout the hearing", I found that the RPD was courteous, respectful and pleasant throughout the hearing. [23] In terms of the medical report, firstly it should be noted that there is no evidence to support the Appellant's allegation that "the RPD plainly relayed its belief that the medical document had been tampered with, and that the irregularity factored into its decision, which entirely rested on the issue of credibility."6 The RPD made no findings in its reasons as to the document's authenticity. The

Appellants, therefore, have no basis to conclude that the RPD surreptitiously took into account that the document was fraudulent without making such a finding plain. [24] Furthermore, in my opinion, the RPD was correct to examine the document closely as it does have a questionable overall appearance. I note that in the letterhead of the Arabic original, for instance, the name of the hospital is provided in English but the word hospital is misspelled: "XXXX XXXX".7 Also, in the text of the letter, there is no mention of any treatment or follow-up and the statement about scratches and bruises "all over her body" seems to be somewhat vague for language used by a medical professional. Certainly, the document warranted close scrutiny and the RPD's questions were justified. However, the RPD was correct in its reasons to find that, in any event, the document does not provide probative evidence of the cause of the Principal Appellant's injuries. [25] The Appellants assert that it was unreasonable for the RPD to expect the medical certificate to identify the agent of persecution. However, this is a misinterpretation of the RPD's reasons. It was not the RPD's expectation that the letter identifies the agent of persecution, the RPD merely noted, that in assigning the document weight, it did not link the agent of persecution to the Principal Appellant's injuries. [26] I conclude that the

RPD's questioning of the Principal Appellant did not demonstrate any bias against her or the other Appellants, but rather reflected its role as the finder of fact given the evidence presented. I also find that the RPD gave the appropriate weight to the medical report and did not formulate any unfounded conclusions as to its authenticity as alleged. Allegations that the RPD failed to follow the Gender Guidelines and failed to comply with the IRB Member Code of Conduct [27] The Appellants assert that throughout the hearing, the RPD accused the Principal Appellant of providing insufficient oral testimony as compared with the details in her Basis of Claim narrative (BOC). The Appellants submit that the Principal Appellant was instructed to provide short answers at the hearing which was why some of her initial replies to questions were not more fulsome. They argue the RPD was quick to pounce on microscopic details the Principal Appellant neglected to mention in her initial replies. The Appellants provide three excerpts from the transcript to highlight what they perceive to be the RPD's flawed examination of the Principal Appellant. [28] The Appellants assert that the RPD's method of questioning is prohibited by the IRB Member code of Conduct which prescribes that members act honestly, fairly, in good faith, ethnically and professionally. The Appellants also argue that such

questioning contravenes the Gender Guidelines which prescribe sensitivity on the part of the Board when dealing with gender-based refugee claims. [29] I disagree with the Appellants. First of all, the gendered aspect to this particular claim is slight. While it is true that the Principal Appellant is a woman and the agents of persecution (apart from the unidentified lady in the niqab in the XXXX 2014 incident) are male, the Principal Appellant was allegedly targeted due to her role in providing guidance to a young female member of her church, rather than for a reason specifically related to her own gender. [30] Nevertheless, in reviewing the Chairperson's Guidelines 4: Women Refugee Claimants fearing gender-related persecution8, the Appellants have failed to explain what part of the guidelines prescribes special treatment of claimants in circumstances such as the Principal Appellant's - nor do they explain how the RPD contravened this instruction. Having listened to the entire hearing, I find there was no lack of sensitivity on the part of the RPD which could be considered in contravention of the guidelines. [31] Similarly, I note that the Code of Conduct for Members prescribes that hearings must be conducted in a courteous and respectful manner while ensuring that proceedings are fair, orderly and efficient; members are expected to take into account social and cultural

differences, to act honestly and in good faith in a professional and ethical manner. 9 I find that the Member complied with these directives. The fact that he questioned the Appellant closely in relation to what she had written in her BOC narrative, is not evidence that the Member breached any of these instructions. The Member's manner was calm and inquisitive rather than aggressive and intolerant. I do not find the RPD erred in the manner it questioned the Appellants. Nor do I find that the RPD breached either the Code of Conduct or the Gender Guidelines. Lack of corroborative evidence [32] The Appellants assert that the RPD erred because it expected the Appellants to have produced more corroborative evidence. The Appellants submit that they provided sufficient reliable evidence to support their claims - including proof that they are Coptic Christians, proof that the Principal Appellant was involved with her Church in Egypt, copies of their asylum claim in the US, the medical certificate and emails from the Principal Appellant's sister and aunt, as well as identity documents. The Appellants assert that, despite their "ample" documentation, "the RPD's findings on credibility inexplicably centred on a perceived lack of corroborative evidence."10 [33] The Appellants found the RPD's approach to be contrary to the Maldonado principle and noted that the RPD did not have sufficient

grounds to doubt their credibility and hence had no basis on which to insist on corroborative evidence. [34] I disagree with the Appellants. First of all, the Appellants did not produce ample documentary evidence to support their claim that the Principal Appellant was being pursued by XXXX XXXX, his father and brother - the allegation at the heart of their claim. They did provide ample evidence of their identity and of their religious affiliation but the only documents which touched on their allegations of being at risk were: a. The medical report - discussed earlier in this decision. b. An email from the Principal Appellant's sister (from address: XXXX@gmail.com) in which she states that the Associate Appellant's sister (the Principal Appellant's sister-in-law) confirms that the Principal Appellant lived at her home in XXXX from XXXX XXXX, 2017 to XXXX XXXX, 2017.11 c. A second email from the Principal Appellant's sister's email address (XXXX@gmail.com), but purportedly a message from her aunt, in which the aunt attests that the Appellants stayed at her home "from XXXX XXXX, 2015" to "XXXX XXXX, 2014" when the Principal Appellant left Egypt to go to the United States and that, after she returned, the Principal Appellant again stayed with her from XXXX XXXX, 2017 to XXXX XXXX, 2017 because "threats started once again".12 [35] These documents do not provide any details about the

agent of persecution (XXXX XXXX and his family), they do not describe the nature of the threats made against the Principal Appellant, nor do they support the Principal Appellant's assertion of being physically attacked; the emails do not even describe why the Principal Appellant had to stay with her relatives in order to be safe. I therefore disagree with the Appellants that they provided ample supporting documents for their claim. However, I agree with the RPD that these documents demonstrate that the Appellants understood the importance of providing documentary evidence to support their claim. [36] I also disagree with the Appellants that the RPD's findings on credibility centred on the lack of corroborative evidence. At paragraph 8 of its reasons, the RPD makes its rationale clear - the Appellants' allegations were found incredible because: they had not established the existence or identity of the agent of the persecution, they had not established the profile of the agent of the agent of persecution nor his ability to find the Principal Appellant, the Appellants had not established the existence of XXXX, nor had they established the Principal Appellant's profile with respect to her church activities. Finally, the RPD also noted that "the lack of persuasive documentation to support the allegations" was also a factor which diminished their credibility.13 [37] I take the

Appellants' point that the Principal Appellant did not think to keep records to show that she changed her SIM card on a number of occasions as she alleged, given her evidence on the ease of purchasing SIM cards in Egypt, without even the need to show identification.14 But, this was just one example of a record that the RPD mentions which could have been produced in evidence. [38] In terms of the Appellant's assertion that because her husband, the Associate Appellant, was able to testify to certain events "it is inconceivable why witness statements would be required"15, the Appellants appear to have misunderstood the meaning of supporting or corroborating evidence. The Appellants' oral and written first-hand evidence about what happened to them cannot also be considered supporting or corroborating evidence, thus witness statements would have clearly been useful. [39] I entirely agree with the RPD's rationale at paragraph 29 to 33 of its reasons, in which it recognized that corroborative evidence is not always required to establish a credible claim, but that in this particular case supporting documentation was lacking. The RPD correctly cited section 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules on the general requirement to produce supporting evidence, and summarized these general principles in light of the Appellants' particular case, noting: The panel notes that the claimant has

provided an extremely detailed narrative. She has described a number of key players and events that make up the core basis of her claim. There has been little effort from the claimant to document any aspect of her claim despite her testimony that confirms her family members were well aware of her situation. She noted in her testimony that her father, brothers, and husband had told her about further issues in Egypt. Her husband, an associated claimant testified that they gathered information from people in the neighbourhood in Egypt. She further testified that her father knows many people in the community, and he is "very aware" of what is going on. In light of this testimony, the claimant was asked if she had considered obtaining affidavits or statements to support her claim. She responded, "nobody asked me for anymore letters." The panel rejects this explanation. There were two sittings of this claim, providing ample opportunity to acquire additional evidence. Further, to this the panel notes that the claimants were assisted by experienced counsel from the outset of their claim.16 [40] I agree with the above rationale. I therefore find that the RPD did not err in noting that the lack of corroborative documentation diminished the credibility of the Appellants' claim. The alleged agent of persecution [41] The Appellants submit that the RPD did not properly identify the agents of

persecution, noting that the RPD abbreviated the term "agent of persecution", to the acronym "AOP" throughout the decision. The Appellants assert that because the Principal Appellant was not targeted only by XXXX XXXX, but also by his brother and father, this was an error on the RPD's part. [42] I disagree with the Appellants. The Principal Appellant's evidence was that XXXX XXXX was the one motivated to harm her as she had counseled XXXX not to marry him. The fact that XXXX XXXX was assisted and supported in his alleged desire for revenge by his brother and father, is recognized within the RPD's decision (for instance at paragraph 14 of the reasons). The RPD made no error in using an abbreviation in the singular or in referring to the agent of persecution as XXXX XXXX. [43] The Appellants also assert that "Salafists" are a movement in Egypt and thus XXXX XXXX and his family, as practicing Salafists, have access to a sizeable network which would assist them in persecuting the Appellants. The Appellants assert: the RPD embarked on an illogical analysis as to whether XXXX XXXX is a member of the Salafist network. The RPD stated that, "if I were to find the claimants' allegations credible, the AOP may not be any more than perhaps a member of a local religious Muslim family who are involved in criminal activity". Nowhere in the evidence is there support for the RPD's proposition.

The Appellants' testimony, unless shown otherwise, is presumed true. The RPD also described XXXX XXXX as "a traditional Muslim individual" without offering any reasoning as to why the Appellants' testimony that he is a Salafist was disbelieved. No objective evidence supports the RPD's doubt of the Appellants' testimony that XXXX XXXX, his family, and those who assisted him in threatening and beating Ms. XXXX are involved with Egypt's well-documented Salafist movement. The Appellants have lived their entire lives in Egypt as a religious minority, well aware of the various religious groups that impact their lives. Their testimony on the individuals targeting them ought to have been believed, absent meaningful evidence to the contrary.17 [44] As correctly determined by the RPD, one of the main reasons why the Principal Appellant's story of persecution was not credible is because she identified XXXX XXXX only as a "Salafist". She stated that she knew he was a Salafist because of the way he trimmed his beard and the way he dressed. And contrary to the Appellant's assertion, the RPD never made a determination that XXXX XXXX was not a Salafist. The RPD's point was that asserting someone is a Salafist is not enough to identify him as a person who has access to a network of individuals willing to assist him in his personal endeavours. [45] Asserting that someone, simply because they are

a Salafist, has access to a network of individuals to assist him in persecuting the Principal Appellant, would be like stating that a Lutheran, because of the sect they belong to, has access to a network of Lutherans who would be ready and willing to assist their fellow-Lutheran in the persecution of a target with antithetical beliefs. [46] Salafism is merely a puritanical form of Islam.18 A report on the emerging armed groups in Egypt in the National Documentation Package (NDP) defines the term: "Salafism-Salafis: 'Salafism' is a puritanical and ultra-orthodox form of Islam that teaches a highly literal interpretation of religious texts and theological discourses. Its followers are 'Salafis'. Different schools of Salafism exist." 19 [47] Certainly, it is not impossible to be both a Salafi and a law-abiding citizen. One of the major legitimate political parties in Egypt that emerged after the 2011 revolution, is the Al-Nour party, which follows a Salafi ideology.20 However, on the other hand, groups such as the Islamic State-Sinai Province (IS-SP)21, and Al-Qa'ida22 also espouse Salafism. In other words, simply stating that someone is a Salafist or Salafi does not signify that they belong to one cohesive group and therefore have the capacity to hunt someone down anywhere in the country. [48] I also note that the government is actively engaged in fighting Islamic extremist in

the country due to terrorist and insurgent violence, particularly in the Sinai.23 The government keeps a close eye on Imams and have revoked preaching permits from Salafi clerics where they have deviated from pre-approved sermons.24 Thus, the government is actively interested in pursuing any form of violent Islamic extremism, in fact the Sisi government has been criticized for its broad use of counterterrorism measures, which include arrest and detention without trial.25 [49] Going back to the Principal Appellant's testimony regarding why she feared XXXX XXXX because of his appearance, I note that her testimony was extremely vague: MEMBER: (...) can you tell me what you fear if you were to return to Egypt today? INTERPRETER (Principal Appellant): I am afraid of being killed. I am afraid of having my life taken away, for me and my kids and my husband. MEMBER: And who are you afraid of? INTERPRETER: XXXX XXXX and his dad and his brother XXXX XXXX. (...) MEMBER: (...) So, with respect to these individuals you have identified their name, right, do they have any other form of identity, or who are they, are they just people who are community residents?(...) INTERPRETER: These people are living in the community and they are part of the Salafist group. (...) And the Salafist group hates all Christians and they hate anybody who wants to make any change or make any project. MEMBER:

Explain to me who the Salafist group are? INTERPRETER: They are a group of Islamists who are having Islam as their religion. They are very strict, and they consider anybody who are not Muslim, they are infidel or atheist, they don't have any religion, and either they try to convince the Christian to transfer to Islam or they kill him and in such a case they will get a better position in heaven. MEMBER: So, these individuals you described them as part of a Salafist group, are they part of a local group in the Alexandria area where you reside? INTERPRETER: Yes, yes. MEMBER: And if I was with you on the street and we ran into these individuals how might I identify them? INTERPRETER: The men are wearing white gowns and some kind of pants that is short and it doesn't touch the ground and they shave their moustache and raze their beard, and ladies they wear niqab and all their body is covered.(...) MEMBER: Okay, so these individuals are local to your community, do they have a profile outside of the community or the ability to communicate elsewhere in the country? INTERPRETER: Alexandria or Egypt in general? MEMBER: Let's say Egypt in general. INTERPRETER: We heard that yes. (...) I don't have any personal experience outside Egypt. MEMBER: How do you explain what that means, you don't have any personal experience outside of Egypt, maybe it came through Egypt? INTERPRETER: I heard that

they are available all over the world. MEMBER: When you say available all over the world, I could say that many religions are available all over the world or religious groups, do you have any further information than that? INTERPRETER: No.26 [50] As can be seen from the above excerpt, the Appellant only identified XXXX XXXX as a "Salafist". However, there is no one cohesive group which operates under this label, the only defining characteristic of all the various Salafists would be their approach to Islam. [51] Later during the hearing and in her BOC, the Principal Appellant alleges that she learned that XXXX XXXX, his father and brother had been arrested and accused "of numerous crimes and of terrifying many families."27 She alleged that they were, however, released from jail in 2017 and that they again began to threaten her. When the RPD asked her why the XXXX XXXX was arrested, the Principal Appellant replied that "he was arrested because he was following this Salafist group, not because of me."28 But when the RPD asked her how she came to learn of the arrests, the Principal Appellant admitted she was in the US at the time. The Associate Appellant, who was in Egypt at the time, explained that the arrests were well known in the neighbourhood as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a XXXX grocXXXX XXXX.29 [52] The RPD noted that neighbourhood gossip about the arrests and the closure of the

XXXX XXXX could only be considered hearsay evidence as the Associate Appellant only testified about what he heard from third parties, and not directly from anyone actually involved in the case. The RPD was correct, the Appellants' assertions about these arrests were based only on rumours and unsupported by any documentary evidence such as newspaper articles or affidavits. [53] Ultimately, based on the Appellants' allegations of the profile of XXXX XXXX, his brother and father - all that is actually alleged is their religious affiliation, the fact that they may have been arrested, and the fact that they XXXX a XXXX XXXX in Alexandria. The RPD was correct to conclude that these assertions amounted to insufficient evidence - both testamentary and documentary - to establish that the agents of persecution existed and would be able to find the Principal Appellant anywhere in Egypt. The RPD did not err on this point. The RPD did not fail to conduct a proper section 97 analysis [54] The Appellants submit that the RPD did not assess their claims pursuant to section 97(1) of IRPA correctly. In their Memorandum, they submit: "The RPD did not assess evidence under section 97 of the IRPA. Had it done so, it would have found that these Appellants are persons in need of protection. (...) The RPD stated that the documentary evidence describes non-specific, generalized risk situations in Egypt

concerning Coptic Orthodox Christians, and some evidence concerning kidnapping. It held that because the Appellants' allegations did not specifically involve kidnapping, they are not at risk. This is respectfully nonsensical, and indicates a failure to meaningfully engage with the accepted documentary evidence concerning Egypt's Coptic minority."30 [55] I disagree with the Appellants. Firstly, the RPD rejected their claims pursuant to section 97(1) of IRPA as well as section 96 of IRPA, as indicated in paragraph 37 of its reasons. [56] Secondly, the RPD did not state that as the Appellants' allegations did not involve kidnapping, they are not at risk. What the RPD did note was the following: "The panel has examined the documentation referenced by Counsel, which he submits addresses the claimants' risk.8 This evidence describes the kidnapping of young Coptic women and boys. The panel notes that the claimants' allegations do not involve "kidnapping", but describe the actions of a traditional Muslim individual who expressed a love interest in a Christian woman, XXXX."31 There was nothing inaccurate or incorrect in this statement at paragraph 17 of its reasons - certainly nothing nonsensical. [57] Thirdly, it is difficult to understand why the Appellants argue that their case would be made out pursuant to section 97(1) of IRPA even though it failed under section 96 of IRPA. Under

section 96 of IRPA they would only need to prove they faced a serious possibility of persecution in Egypt on the basis of their religious affiliation, whereas under section 97, they would have to prove they were more likely than not to face either torture, a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment in Egypt on the basis of their religious affiliation. It is difficult to see how they could meet the section 97 test if they were unable to meet the section 96 test. [58] In any event, I note that being a Copt in Egypt - as a standalone consideration - is generally not recognized as being sufficient to warrant international protection. A recent Home Office report states: "Christians are in general not at risk of persecution or serious harm by nonstate actors in urban areas, including in Cairo and Alexandria".32 Furthermore, in the case of the Appellants, the RPD correctly determined that their allegations of being sought after for ill-treatment by a particular family is not credible, thus there are no additional factors to be taken into account in addition to this family's Coptic faith. [59] I therefore find the RPD did not err when it determined that the Appellants are not persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of IRPA.

CONCLUSION [60] After my independent review of the evidence in the Appellants' case, I find the RPD did not err in its finding that the Appellants' allegations are not credible. I am satisfied, based on the evidence, that the Appellants would not be personally subjected to a risk of torture, a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should they return to Egypt. I am also not satisfied the Appellants have demonstrated that there is a serious possibility that they would be persecuted on a Convention ground if they returned to Egypt. [61] I also find that the minor American Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, would not be personally subjected to a risk of torture, a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should he return to the United States. I am also not satisfied there is a serious possibility that he would be persecuted on a Convention ground if he returned to the United States. [62] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Jillan Sadek Jillan Sadek March 8, 2021 Date 1Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 2 RPD-1, Medical report, RPD record, p. 477 3 RPD-1, RPD reasons, paragraph 16, RPD record, p. 7 4 P-2,

Appellants' Memorandum, paragraphs 53-54, Appellants' record, p.264-465 5 RAD-1, Transcript of the first sitting of the RPD hearing, August 27, 2020, p.23 6 P-2, Appellants' Memorandum, paragraph 52, Appellants' record, p.264 7 RPD-1, Medical certificate in Arabic, RPD record, p.478 8 Chairperson Guidelines 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. Effective date: November 13, 1996 9 Code of Conduct for Members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada - Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (irb-cisr.gc.ca) 10 P-2, Appellants' Memorandum, paragraphs 29 and 38, Appellants' record, p.258 and 255 11 RPD-1, Email from sister, RPD record, p. 481 12 RPD-1, Email from aunt, RPD record, p.479 13 RPD-1, RPD reasons, paragraph 8, RPD record, p.5 14 RAD-1, Transcript of the second sitting of the RPD hearing, September 25, 2020, p.17 15 P-2, Appellants' Memorandum, paragraph 36, Appellants' record, p.256 16 RPD-1, RPD reasons, paragraph 29 and 30, RPD record, p.12 17 P-2, Appellants' Memorandum, paragraph 58-59, Appellants' record, p.266 18 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31 March 2020, tab 7.6: ?A Challenging State: Emerging Armed Groups in Egypt. Security Assessment in North Africa; Small Arms Survey. Mokhtar Awad. July 2017. 19 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31

March 2020, tab 7.6: ?A Challenging State: Emerging Armed Groups in Egypt. Security Assessment in North Africa; Small Arms Survey. Mokhtar Awad. July 2017. 20 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31 March 2020, tab 5.1: Treatment of women who do not conform to Muslim practices and traditions, including wearing a veil (head covering), in rural and urban areas; state protection available to victims of mistreatment (June 2013-November 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 November 2014. EGY105005.E. 21 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31 March 2020, tab 7.6: ?A Challenging State: Emerging Armed Groups in Egypt. Security Assessment in North Africa; Small Arms Survey. Mokhtar Awad. July 2017. 22 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31 March 2020, tab 1.3: ?Egypt. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 17 September 2019. 23 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31 March 2020, tab 4.7: ?Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations. United States. Congressional Research Service. Jeremy M. Sharp. 12 March 2019. 24 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31 March 2020, tab 12.1: ?Egypt. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018. United States.

Department of State. 21 June 2019. 25 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31 March 2020, tab 1.6: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. July 2017. 26 RAD-1, Transcript of the first sitting of the RPD hearing, August 27, 2020, p.10-12 27 P-2, Principal Appellant's BOC narrative, RPD record, p.45 28 RAD-1, Transcript of the first sitting of the RPD hearing, August 27, 2020, p.26 29 RAD-1, Transcript of the first sitting of the RPD hearing, August 27, 2020, p.27 30 P-2, Memorandum, paragraph 84, Appellants' record, p.275 31 RPD-1, RPD reasons, paragraph 17, RPD record, p.8 32 RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 3, Archive - National Documentation Package, Egypt, 31 March 2020, tab 1.7: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Egypt: Christians. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. July 2017. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-11847 TC0-11848 / TC0-11849 / TC0-11850 TC0-11851 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français