MC0-08563

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-08563 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 Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, Ontario Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 23, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Murielle Henri Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Stéphanie Valois 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] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Egypt. He fears returning by reason of his imputed political opinion and his Nubian ethnicity. [2] In 2006, one of President Mubarak's sons wanted to take over his land and made an offer that was less than its true value. The appellant refused, and he was arrested by state agents, then beaten and accused of being an opponent of the Mubarak regime. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2007, the appellant left Egypt for the United States, where he lived for 10 years. He arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and claimed refugee protection. [3] On February 27, 2020, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his refugee protection claim on the ground that he was not credible. DETERMINATION [4] I dismiss the appeal. The appellant did not demonstrate that he would be subjected to a risk if he were to return to Egypt. ANALYSIS [5] My role is to review all of the evidence and establish whether the RPD's decision is correct.1 In this case, I am of the opinion that the determinative issue is the risk of return. In his memorandum, the appellant submits that the RPD erred in the analysis of his credibility and that it did not provide reasons for its conclusions with respect to the documents he filed in evidence. Preliminary remarks [6] When decision-makers write decisions, they must exercise restraint in using derogatory language or expressions. In this case, the RPD quoted a derogatory term for Black individuals when it summarized the appellant's allegations regarding the persecution he experienced in Egypt. It is understandable that the appellant would quote word-for-word the insults he received in his country when he testified before the RPD. Nevertheless, in my view, it was not appropriate for the RPD member to use a racial epithet in its decision. There was no need to use this derogatory word when summarizing the appellant's allegations. In addition, given that decisions are available to the public, the unwarranted use of a racial slur may shock and offend readers. A decision-maker must remain vigilant with respect to the appropriateness of the words used in a decision. In my opinion, the RPD member exercised poor judgment in using this racial slur. Risk of return [7] When the RPD asked the appellant about what he fears should he return to Egypt, given that the Mubarak government has not been in power since 2011, he replied that although the government has changed, the military regime is the same.2 He added that he will be persecuted because of his Nubian ethnicity. Nubian ethnicity [8] In its decision, the RPD found that the appellant was not credible and that he added this ground to augment his claims of persecution. It is not sufficient to state that the appellant is not credible; it is also necessary to explain why he is not. However, the RPD failed to do so. [9] In this case, after the appellant established that he is Nubian, the RPD was required to assess whether the events the appellant experienced in the past, as well as the documentary evidence about the situation in Egypt, can lead to a conclusion that the appellant may be persecuted if he were to return to Egypt. When asked by the RPD about what he experienced in Egypt, the appellant testified that he did not have any problems before 2006, but that he was persecuted afterwards because he is a minority. For example, he testified that Nubians are treated like slaves and subjected to racial slurs.3 [10] According to the documentary evidence, Nubians face racism and discrimination in Egypt.4 There are reportedly between three and four million Nubians living in Egypt, who originate from the region known as "Nubia," which once occupied territory in modern-day southern Egypt and northern Sudan. The Nubian people were subject to a series of forced displacements during the 20th century. This had a significant economic effect on them and threatened the continuation of their culture and customs. Today, Nubians have found themselves a minority within their native province. Moreover, in recent years, there have been several incidents involving the violent arrest and detention of Nubians involved in campaigning for their right to return to the remaining part of their ancestral lands.5 However, the appellant did not testify or establish that he was an activist. Although article 53 of the Constitution prohibits all forms of discrimination, Nubians face significant societal stigmatization and discrimination, with the Egyptian media portraying them as servants, drivers, gatekeepers or even slaves. Nubians have access to education, but the curriculum does not include the provision to learn the Nubian language, and educational materials do not mention Nubian culture or history at all. For Nubians living in cities, it was reported that the quality of the healthcare they are able to access depends on their income.6 [11] In this case, the discrimination that the appellant allegedly experienced does not amount to persecution. In this regard, I considered paragraphs 51 to 55 of the Handbook of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as the definition of the word persecution given by the courts and Professor James C. Hataway, to the effect that persecution is a "sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights demonstrative of a failure of state protection."7 For discrimination against a person to amount to persecution, it must be serious and occur with repetition, and must have consequences for the person, such as when the individual is denied a core human right, such as the right to practise religion or to earn a livelihood.8 However, the appellant failed to demonstrate that his core rights were violated or that they would be if he returned to Egypt. He did not provide any indication that his access to housing, employment or social services was violated or that it would be if he returned to Egypt. Moreover, he did not testify that his children could not be educated. To the contrary, the appellant testified that his children attended a private school. Lastly, he failed to demonstrate that the discrimination he experienced was serious and occurred with repetition to the point that it had serious consequences for him. [12] In summary, the appellant's testimony and the documentary evidence do not establish that the appellant was persecuted, or that he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Egypt by reason of his Nubian ethnicity. Imputed political opinion [13] The documentary evidence shows that President Mubarak has not been Egypt's president since February 2011. When asked by the RPD about what he fears in the event of a return, the appellant answered that although there has been a change in government, the military regime is still there and that he is considered an opponent.9 During his testimony, he added that the state considers him a political opponent and if he returns, the authorities will know because of the arrest warrant that was issued against him and, consequently, he will be arrested at the airport. Lastly, he testified that the change in government does not change his situation, since the regime is still there.10 [14] I cannot accept these explanations. First, at the time of the RPD hearing, the Mubarak regime had not been in power for nine years, and the appellant did not explain how the new regime would still consider him a political opponent. In addition, the appellant did not demonstrate that the current regime has ties to the former one. Moreover, Mubarak's son wanted the land for his personal use, not for the regime. Lastly, I consulted the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package, and there is no indication that individuals who were considered opponents of the Mubarak government are viewed as opponents of the current government.11 On the contrary, it states that the Constitution prohibits the government from expelling citizens or banning them from returning to the country, and that some Mubarak-era politicians lived outside the country by choice and stated that they faced government threats of prosecution.12 Therefore, individuals who were powerful under Mubarak are currently marginalized. [15] In addition, in his Basis of Claim Form and during his testimony before the RPD, the appellant stated that his children face threats because he is seen as a political opponent. He explained that following a theft, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, his daughter went to the police station to file a complaint. At that time, the police officer asked her about her father (the appellant), then hit and threatened her. The police officer also allegedly referred to her Nubian ethnicity. When he was asked if his daughter was injured, the appellant answered that the police have a way of hitting without leaving a mark.13 [16] I reject this part of the testimony, since no evidence of threats from the police in the years before this incident was submitted. In my opinion, if the appellant had been seen as a political opponent, even after Mubarak's departure, the police would not have waited for a member of the appellant's family to show up at a police station to enquire about his whereabouts. In addition, it seems contradictory to a police complaint about a simple cellphone theft knowing that the entire family is being persecuted because of their Nubian ethnicity and because her father (the appellant) is viewed as a political opponent. [17] In light of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the appellant did not demonstrate that he is a person of interest to the current government in Egypt. [18] Therefore, the appellant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution by reason of his imputed political opinion. [19] Finally, as the appellant notes in his memorandum, the RPD member's taunts at paragraph 15 were unwarranted. In my view, she should have shown restraint when she described the appellant's response as ridiculous. CONCLUSION [20] The appellant did not establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be subjected to a danger of torture, a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to his home country. [21] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Murielle Henri Murielle Henri April 23, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Recording of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) hearing on January 28, 2020, around 00:27:00. 3 Ibid., around 0l:00:00. 4 SAR-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Egypt, April 16, 2021, Tab 1.8: BTI 2020 Country Report - Egypt, Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2020, at page 7; Tab 2.1: Egypt. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020, United States. Department of State. March 30, 2021, at page 67; Tab 2.11: Compilation on Egypt, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, September 2, 2019. A/HRC/WG.6/34/EGY/2, at page 11; Tab 2.9: A Past Still Present; Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Egypt, Equal Rights Trust. December 2018. 5 SAR-1, NDP on Egypt, April 16, 2021, Tab 2.9: A Past Still Present; Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Egypt, at pages 250 to 264. 6 Ibid., at page 265. 7 Ranjba v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 637, and Sagharichi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (C.A.). 8 Sefa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1190, at para. 10. 9 Recording of the RPD hearing on January 28, 2020, around 00:25:00. 10 Ibid., around 00:59:00. 11 SAR-1, NDP on Egypt, April 16, 2021, Tab 1.5: Country Policy and Information Note. Egypt: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. July 2017, at page 29. 12 Ibid., NDP on Eypt, April 16, 2021, Tab 2.1: Egypt. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020, at page 39; and Tab 7.4: Fighting Corruption Or Protecting The Regime? Egypt's Administrative Control Authority. Project on Middle East Democracy. Jessica Noll. February 2019, at page 22. 13 Supra, endnote 2, around 00:41:00 to 00:46:00. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-08563 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 3 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