TC1-07864

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-07864 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision November 19, 2021 Date de la décision Panel David Morris Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Michael F Loebach Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss this appeal. [2] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Egypt. He fears persecution due to his association to his father who was accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. [3] The Appellant's father left Egypt and moved his family to Libya in XXXX 1976. The Appellant was born in Libya in 1984. He and his family remained in Libya on work and study visas over the years. The Appellant has two sisters who returned to Egypt: one in 1997, the other in 2013. The Appellant returned to Egypt to live in XXXX 2015. [4] Libya does not grant citizenship to persons, like the Appellant, who are born in Libya to non-citizens. The Appellant was able to remain in Libya so long as he had a study or work permit. He has had no status in Libya since returning to Egypt. [5] While the Appellant was traveling for his work, his bus was stopped at a check point in XXXX, on XXXX XXXX 2017. He was taken from the bus, his identification was inspected and he was detained and questioned for approximately XXXX hours before being released. [6] On XXXX XXXX 2017, he was again taken off a bus at a check point in XXXX. His identification and his cell phone were inspected. He was told to send a copy of his identification to the nearest police station and was then released. [7] About XXXX XXXX later a police officer contacted the Appellant by phone and asked why he had not provided a copy of his identification. On XXXX XXXX 2017, three officers in civilian clothes came to his work residence in XXXX. The officers searched the Appellant's residence. One of them asked the Appellant why he was in XXXX and what he was doing there. The Appellant later discovered the officers had stolen some items and some money from him. [8] In XXXX 2019, the Appellant left Egypt and came to Canada where he made his claim for protection. ANALYSIS [9] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) made the correct decision.1 [10] The Appellant indicates that he is not seeking to enter any new evidence. I therefore have no jurisdiction to hold an oral hearing. Egypt only country of reference [11] I find the RPD correctly determined that the Appellant is a citizen of Egypt and that he no longer has any status in Libya. The documentation on Record shows that the Appellant's status in Libya was temporary.2 Egypt is therefore the only country of reference. Appellant's core allegations are accepted [12] I have first considered the Appellant's claim pursuant to section 96 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [13] The Appellant's claim is based on his association to his father. The Appellant's father is a follower of the Sunni Islamic faith and was a XXXX at the XXXX in Idris, Egypt3 - which was the town where the Appellant's family lived before moving to Libya. The Appellant's father was harassed and detained by the authorities on suspicion of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was because of this treatment that the father left Egypt. The Appellant believes that the authorities are still looking for his father because his father is perceived to be an opponent of the current regime. The Appellant fears being detained, tortured, and disappeared because of his relationship to his father. [14] Unlike the RPD, I find no reason to question the Appellant's overall credibility. Based on the documentation on Record and the transcript of the RPD proceedings, I accept the Appellant has a subjective fear of being persecuted in Egypt. However, having considered his testimony as well as his documentation and the objective evidence, I find the RPD was correct in determining that the Appellant has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be targeted because of his father's perceived association with the Muslim Brotherhood. The evidence does not show, on a balance of probabilities, that the authorities perceive the Appellant as an opponent or that he faces persecution or harm due to his relationship to his father [15] The Appellant submits that he is not in a position to speculate why the authorities would be interested in him forty-five years after his father fled the country other than that his father was suspected of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood. He submits that the fact he wasn't harmed when he was detained, or that he wasn't notified that his father was still being investigated, does not show a lack of future risk. [16] I agree with the Appellant to the extent that the fact he was not harmed when he was briefly detained and questioned does not necessarily indicate he would not be persecuted in the future. However, the Appellant still bears the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities the facts which support his claim. The fact he was not harmed, when considered with all the other circumstances surrounding his contact with the authorities, is a strong indication that neither the Appellant nor his father are perceived as opponents of the current regime. [17] These circumstances include that the Appellant was stopped at existing checkpoints, that he was asked for and provided his national identification card, that he provided information about his family and his father and that, despite this, he was simply questioned and released. Even on the one occasion when the authorities searched his residence, although he was robbed by the officers, there is no indication that they had any particular interest in the Appellant's father or his perceived political activities. I find the Appellant has failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the authorities perceive him as an opponent because of his relationship to his father. [18] The Appellant refers to his testimony and the letter from his neighbour4 which indicates that on XXXX XXXX 2015, the police came to their old neighbourhood to inquire and collect information about the Appellant's father and family. He argues that this was a significant piece of corroborative evidence and that the RPD was obliged to explain why it was ignored. [19] I agree that the RPD should have specifically dealt with the statement of the neighbour. I have therefore considered this statement as well as the other evidence submitted by the Appellant. However, I find the Appellant's assertion that the government carried on with the investigation of his father after reviewing the old files to see who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood5 is speculative. Particularly, since the Appellant's testimony was that his father had never been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.6 [20] I accept that the police made inquiries about the Appellant's father in XXXX 2015. However, the Appellant's own evidence was that he subsequently returned to Egypt to live in XXXX 2015.7 As indicated by the stamp on his passport,8 the authorities were clearly aware of his entry. I find it likely that if the Appellant or his father were perceived by authorities to be opponents of the regime, he would have at least been questioned when he identified himself upon his return to Egypt. [21] The Appellant submits that the RPD conflated the issue of who was persecuting him (National Security) with why he was being persecuted (because of his father's political opinion). In fact, the Appellant testified that he was being persecuted by the National Security because of his relationship to his father.9 I therefore see no inconsistency in his testimony in this regard. However, while I accept that the Appellant genuinely believes he will be persecuted or harmed by the National Security because of his father, in my assessment, the evidence simply does not support this belief on a balance of probabilities. [22] The Appellant asserts that the RPD was engaging in speculation when it determined that the police were not looking for him. I disagree. There is actually no evidence to indicate that the authorities were looking for the Appellant. On the contrary, when the Appellant identified himself, he was questioned and released. The RPD's finding on this point was therefore supported by the evidence and was not merely speculative. [23] The Appellant submits that his evidence must be presumed true, "... unless specifically disbelieved on adequate grounds."10 By this I take him to mean that he is entitled to the presumption of truth absent evidence to the contrary. However, while I accept the Appellant is being truthful in stating his belief that he would be persecuted because of his father, in my assessment, the evidence shows otherwise. [24] Specifically, the Appellant was detained on two occasions. Both times he was on a bus which was stopped at a checkpoint. There is no evidence to show that the authorities were looking for the Appellant on either occasion. When his bus was stopped in XXXX 2017, two years after he returned to Egypt, he was taken to a police station and detained for XXXX hours. They checked his national identification card,11 searched him, checked his Facebook and social media, and then let him go. The Appellant testified that during this interrogation the police wanted to know what his father's political activities and affiliations are.12 However, no accusations were made against the Appellant or his father.13 Although the police originally asked if he had a bondsperson, the Appellant was released without any charge or bond. The Appellant was not harmed during the interrogation.14 [25] Similarly, in XXXX 2017, while travelling for work, the Appellant was stopped on a bus by police at a checkpoint in the city of XXXX and questioned for about XXXX XXXX XXXX minutes. He was not accused of anything, but his national identification was examined. He was told to provide a copy of his identification and address to the local police and then let go.15 About XXXX XXXX later an officer contacted him by phone to ask why he had not provided the identification as requested. Then, on XXXX XXXX2017, three plain clothes officers came to the place he was residing and searched the residence and the Appellant's belongings. They asked him why he was in XXXX and what he was doing there. After the men left, the Appellant discovered that they had stolen some money and some of his other belongings. The Appellant's father was not mentioned in these later encounters and the Appellant was not arrested or harmed. [26] If the authorities were indeed targeting the Appellant because of his father's alleged connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, I agree with the RPD that it is unlikely that the Appellant would simply have been released on these occasions. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was stopped during routine checks. The RPD correctly determined that there was insufficient evidence to connect these incidents to the father's perceived political opinion. [27] The Appellant submits that the RPD ignored his testimony that his father was of interest to the regime. He asserts that the RPD must still consider the remaining evidence even where it finds the Appellant is not credible. However, the RPD clearly considered the Appellant's allegation that his father was being investigated. Simply because it did not make the finding the Appellant wished it to, does not mean it ignored his testimony. Sisters not being targeted by the authorities is of no relevance [28] The RPD asked the Appellant whether his sisters, who have been living in Egypt for several years, have had any problems. He testified that they had not. From this, the RPD concluded there was insufficient evidence to show that the family was wanted by the Egyptian authorities because of their father. [29] I find the RPD erred in this regard. Without asking the Appellant how the sisters were able to live in Egypt, there was no basis upon which to draw an adverse inference. It is certainly possible, for example, that males would be more likely than women to be perceived as potential members of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the opposite is also true - simply because his sisters weren't targeted does not provide any evidence that the Appellant will be. Therefore, although I draw no inference from the sisters not being targeted, the Appellant must still show, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be targeted because of his relationship to his father. The Appellant is not perceived as an opponent of the government [30] The Appellant argues that the RPD's credibility findings were unfair since, in essence, it found he lacked credibility without detailing any significant omissions, embellishments, or contradictions. As I have already indicated, I find the Appellant was generally credible. [31] He further argues that his personal circumstances, when considered in light of the objective evidence, show that he is at risk of persecution or harm. [32] In my assessment, the objective evidence shows that dissent of nearly any kind is not tolerated by Egyptian authorities. Persons who express views opposing the current regime, even views that seem on their face relatively uncontroversial or harmless, risk arrest, detention and ill-treatment including torture, perhaps even death. A United States Congressional Research Service Paper from May 2020 assesses the current political situation in Egypt as follows: Since taking power in 2013, President Abdel Fattah al Sisi's tenure has been predicated on the idea that a significant segment of the public, exhausted after several years of unrest and distrustful of Islamist rule, remains willing to forgo democratic liberties in exchange for the rule of a strongman hailing from the military. The authorities have maintained a constant crackdown against dissent, which initially was aimed at the Muslim Brotherhood but has evolved to encompass a broader range of political speech, encompassing anyone criticizing the government. [reference omitted]16 [33] Repressive measures used against perceived dissidents by the authorities include arrest, enforced disappearance, torture, ill-treatment, excessive use of force and severe probation measures.17 [34] However, the Appellant was not accused of any political activities or supporting the Muslim Brotherhood even after being questioned and he and his father were identified. Further, the Appellant has not alleged that he expressed any political or other opinion that would possibly bring him to the attention of the regime. I take the Appellant's point that the fact he was not harmed in the past does not in itself show that he would not be harmed in the future. Nonetheless, there is insufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant would be perceived as a dissident or opponent of the regime, whether because of his personal views or because of his relationship to his father, or that he has any residual profile that would give rise to a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm. The Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he would face a risk pursuant to subsection 97(1) of IRPA [35] The Appellant argues that he faces a personalized risk pursuant to subsection 97(1) of IRPA. He submits that while he was not targeted personally when the bus he was on was stopped, he was targeted personally when he was the only person on the bus who was detained and when his home was searched. However, with respect to being taken off the bus, the evidence shows that this was a routine stop and that the Appellant was not personally targeted. With regard to the search of his work residence, the Appellant's own evidence was that this was connected to his failure to send a copy of his identification to the police as requested. He was released on each occasion after being identified. [36] I find the Appellant has failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that he faces a personalized risk. [37] I have also assessed the actual risk faced by the Appellant which he identified as being disappeared, tortured, or killed. I find that his experience of being briefly detained and questioned and then released does not show, on a balance of probabilities, that he would face a risk of torture or a risk to his life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment were he were to return to Egypt. [38] The Appellant's claim therefore fails whether considered under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of IRPA. CONCLUSION [39] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA, I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) David Morris David Morris 19 November 2021 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 98-113. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 130-133. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 158-159. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 49, at para. 15. 6 Transcript of 30 April 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 33, lines 6-18. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 49, at para. 15. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 108. 9 Transcript of 30 April 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 16, lines 6-33. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 54, at para. 42. 11 Transcript of 30 April 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 18, lines 1-21. 12 Transcript of 30 April 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 19, lines 12-21. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at pp. 27-28. 14 Transcript of 30 April 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 17, lines 1-47. 15 Transcript of 30 April 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 26, lines 25-30.. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4.1, National Doumentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (16 April 2021), Item 4.2: Country Policy and Information Note Egypt: Opposition to state. Version 1.0., United Kingdom Home Office, July 2020, p. 14, at para. 3.1.7. 17 Ibid., p. 21, at para. 4.2.7. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-07864 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français