TA6-14085

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TA6-14085 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX) Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing May 22, 2009 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing Toronto, Ontario Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision June 5, 2009 Date de la décision Panel Joanna Bedard Tribunal Counsel for the Claimant(s) Razgar Hasan Conseil(s) du / de la / des demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Tribunal Officer Agent(e) de tribunal Designated Representative(s) Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister Conseil du ministre Introduction XXXXX XXXXX, the claimant, a citizen of Egypt, seeks refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Allegations The following is a summary of the claimant's allegations, the full account of which can be found in his Personal Information Form (PIF). The claimant, a Coptic Christian, married an Iraqi Kurdish woman in 1975, and in order to do so, he had to convert to Islam, and they were living in Iraq until1996. The claimant's family abandoned him and considered him dead in their eyes. The claimant and his family moved from Iraq to Egypt in 1996 due to the danger in Iraq. The claimant was afraid of his brothers and the rest of his family. The claimant's brothers found out he was living in Cairo and began to harass his wife and daughters. The claimant's wife was granted asylum at the Canadian embassy in Cairo. In 1998, they came to Canada with her two daughters as Convention refugees. The claimant's wife brought him to Canada in September of 2001 on a temporary residence permit. The claimant legally separated from his wife in XXXXX of 2004. Decision I find the claimant is not a Convention Refugee, as he does not have a well founded fear of persecution in Egypt. I also find that the claimant is not a person in need of protection, in that his removal to Egypt would not subject him personally to a risk to his life, or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and that there are no substantial grounds to believe that his removal to Egypt will subject him to a danger of torture. Analysis This case turns on credibility. The claimant alleged that because, in 1975, the claimant converted to Islam, his brothers would kill him and that they can find him anywhere in Egypt.1 The claimant lived in Cairo from 1996 until 2001, a period of five years. The claimant stated that his brothers found where he and his family were living and started to harass his wife and daughters, after which they were granted asylum in Canada. The claimant moved to another location in Cairo and lived there safely for a period of five years. On a balance of probabilities, I find that since the brothers found the claimant's family, once, in Cairo, they would have found him again and, in fact, the claimant alleges that his brothers can find him anywhere in Egypt, a country of 93 million people, if he were to return.2 Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant is not a credible or a trustworthy witness. The claimant arrived in Canada in 2001 on a temporary residence permit, which was renewed periodically.3 The claimant's wife was going to sponsor him but withdrew the sponsorship in 2006. While the federal court has sometimes held that when claimants are safe, they do not have to claim refugee status right away. However, from time-to-time, when the claimant's renewal was due, there were some problems until the renewal was granted.4 The claimant was declared medically inadmissible as well. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find that while delay, in and of itself, is not normally a decisive factor in refugee determination, it can be relevant when the claimant fails to offer a reasonable explanation for the delay. In certain circumstances, however, delay can be a determinative and decisive factor.5 Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant lacks subjective fear and made a claim to refugee protection only after he learned that his wife a) could not and b) would not, sponsor him. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant not to be a credible or a trustworthy witness. In oral testimony, the claimant alleged that he feared Islamic groups because he had reverted to his Coptic Christian roots. The claimant was asked if he included this in his PIF, which he did not. When asked why not, he stated that he had mentioned it when he made his claim to the interviewing officer. However, the PIF instructions are clear that the claimant must set out all the significant events and reasons that have led the claimant to seek refugee protection in Canada. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant forgot what he had alleged at the interview and that this is a serious omission from his PIF. The claimant was asked if he had been personally threatened. The claimant stated that it is obvious from the Internet that he would be a risk from Islamic groups. The Federal Court has held that a threat must be personal.6 Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant added his danger from Islamic groups on the day of the hearing, as an embellishment, to bolster his claim. The claimant was asked whether he went to the police to tell them about the threats his brothers made. The claimant stated that he did not because he would have been killed immediately because the police are fanatics. Because I have found the claimant lacks credibility, I prefer the evidence of the country documents to that of the claimant because it is based on independent, objective information gathered by a number of human rights and other organizations, with no interest in this or any refugee claim. The documents show that fanatical Islamic groups, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood members, were tried and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Islamic Liberation party is banned. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find that the police cannot be fanatics. The Federal Court has held that claimants must first seek protection in their own country before seeking international protection. It is not sufficient for claimant to allege that the police are fanatical Islamists, so he did not approach them to seek protection. While police protection for Christians in Egypt is spotty, at best, there are instances where the police to assist Christians who are threatened. 7 Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant has not rebutted the presumption that states can protect their citizens. The claimant alleged that while he was in Iraq, his brother did not kill him because he was afraid of the retribution for murder by the Iraqi government. The claimant was asked if his brothers would be at risk if they killed him in Egypt, to which he replied that they would be but that they did not care. The claimant cannot have it both ways, that in one country the brothers were afraid of justice, while in their own country, while they would be subject to justice, they would not care. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant not to be a credible or trustworthy witness, and did not suffer the harm alleged. The claimant alleged that it was a tradition in the Coptic community to kill members who converted to Islam. There is nothing in the country documents to suggest that this as a cultural tradition among Coptic Christians. If this were the case, the panel has the right to expect that such honour killings would be mentioned, as they are in the documentary evidence of countries where such honour killings are practiced by particular communities. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant alleged such a tradition, as an embellishment to bolster his claim, and that he is not a credible witness. The claimant returned to his country twice, although he alleged he feared he would be killed by his brothers; once in 1996, when he remained there for five years, and once in 2004, when he remained for two months. When asked why he went back in 2004, the claimant stated that his brother was dying of cancer and, in fact, did die while the claimant was there. However in 1996, the claimant returned to Egypt rather than seek another country where he would be safe. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant lacks subjective fear. The claimant's personal ID states that he is a Christian. The claimant was asked, if he returned to Egypt, had attended Coptic Christian Church on a regular basis, and got a letter from the priest stating that he is practicing his Coptic religion, would he be safe from his brothers. The claimant stated that the priest was at risk. When asked to explain, he stated he was at risk because he is a Coptic Christian. On a balance of probabilities, I find that if the claimant returns to Egypt and practices his Coptic religion, he would be safe from his brothers. The claimant alleged that he would be at risk from fundamentalist groups because he reverted to Christianity, from Islam. The claimant did not state that he had received personal threats. The claimant was in Iraq when he nominally converted, in order to marry his wife. The claimant was in Iraq from 1974 until 1996. All the claimant mentioned was that his conversion to Islam was known to his brothers; there was no mention that the entire community would find out. The claimant alleged that his neighbours, while he was living in Cairo, noted that his wife's religion was Islam. If, as the claimant alleged, he would be killed for re-converting to Christianity, this would have happened during the five years he was in Cairo. Further, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant not to be a credible or trustworthy witness. The claimant was asked if he could live in Alexandria, to which he replied he could not because his brothers could find him anywhere, that he didn't have a lot of money, he would have to live in a poor district, that he had no one to look after him and that his brothers could, therefore, find him. This does not explain how 14 years after the claimant left Iraq, anyone in Alexandria would know that, due to his marriage, he was a nominal convert to Islam. The claimant explained that he knew relatively little about the religion of Islam and that neither he, nor his wife, practiced it. The claimant does have a pension, and he is free to travel in Egypt with no restrictions. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities I find the claimant has an Internal Flight Alternative in Alexandria. On a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant's separation from his wife to be irrelevant to this claim.8 I have found the claimant not to be credible, not to have suffered the harm alleged, and to have an Internal Flight Alternative. Therefore, I find that there is not a serious possibility or reasonable chance that the claimant would face persecution for a Convention ground, if he returns to Egypt. Therefore, I find the claimant is not a Convention refugee. The panel then turned its mind to whether the claimant would be subject personally to a risk to his life or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or whether there are substantial grounds to believe that he would be subject personally to a danger of torture, if he returns to Egypt. Based on the above analysis, on a balance of probabilities, I find that there are no such risks. Conclusion Having considered all of the evidence, and based on the above analysis, I find the claimant, XXXXX, not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection and I reject his claim. (signed) "Joanna Bedard" Joanna Bedard June 5, 2009 Date REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / PERSECUTION BY FAMILY MEMBERS / RESIDENT PERMIT / MEDICAL GROUNDS / REAVAILMENT / DELAY IN MAKING A CLAIM / INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE / MALE / NEGATIVE / EGYPT 1 Exhibit C-1, attachment. 2 Exhibit R-1, 2.1 3 Exhibit R-2 4 Exhibit R-2, Foss notes 5 Espinosa, Roberto Pablo Hernandez v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5667-02), Rouleau, November 12, 2003. 2003 FC 1324 6 Jayasekara, Ruwan Chandima v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1603-07), Strayer, February 21, 2008, 2008 FC 238; Jayasekara, Ruwan Chandima v. M.C.I. (F.C.A, no. A-140-08), Létourneau, Sharlow, Pelletier, December 17, 2008, 2008 FCA 404 7 Exhibit R-1, 2.1; 12.1 8 Exhibit C-2 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009) Disponible en français RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009) Disponible en français RPD File No. : TA6-14085 5 RPD File No. :TA6-14085