CAT/C/67/D/816/2017

2.2
In his work as a consultant, the male complainant signed an agreement with a
company owned by the Muslim Brotherhood and whose board members included four
ministers of the Muslim Brotherhood-led Government. The complainant’s aim was to
support and aid that Government. In accordance with the agreement, he coordinated joint
projects with senior officials of the Brotherhood, including the Minister of Planning and
International Cooperation and the Minister for Higher Education.
2.3
In July 2013, a military coup took place in Egypt, as a result of which President
Morsi was arrested along with a number of ministers, while others fled the country. The
male complainant, who was living and working in the United Arab Emirates together with
his family at the time, was informed that his residence and work permit had been
withdrawn due to his links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
2.4
Fearing the treatment that supporters of former President Morsi and of the Muslim
Brotherhood were experiencing in Egypt, such as being subjected to extrajudicial killings
and torture, together with the fact that the new Egyptian Government had declared the
Brotherhood an illegal organization and given that he was considered to be a Morsi
supporter by the Egyptian authorities, he and his family fled to Sweden and applied for
asylum there.
2.5
On 5 August 2016, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the complainants’
application for asylum. The Agency noted that the family had stated that they were at risk
of being subjected to persecution, torture and other abuses by the military regime upon
return to Egypt because of the male complainant’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.
It noted that the male complainant had lived outside Egypt since 1996, that the female
complainant had lived outside Egypt since 2000 and that their children were born in the
United Arab Emirates. The family had travelled to Egypt a number of times on holiday.
According to stamps in their passports, the last time the family left Egypt was in early 2015,
while the male complainant was in Egypt for four days in October 2015 to obtain a new
passport. The Agency did not question that people connected with the Brotherhood had
been arrested by the Egyptian regime, but found that the complainants did not have profiles
that would indicate that they would be at risk if returned to Egypt.
2.6
The complainants appealed the decision of the Migration Agency to the Migration
Court. In the appeal, they reiterated that the family would be at risk because of the male
complainant’s collaboration and work with senior officials of the Muslim Brotherhood. The
complainants would therefore be considered by the Egyptian authorities as supporters of the
group and would be at risk of being subjected to torture if deported. The complainants
further reiterated that their residence permits in the United Arab Emirates had been revoked
due to their links to the Brotherhood, and they claimed that the Migration Agency had
failed to properly assess the extent of the male complainant’s links to the Brotherhood. In
the appeal, the complainants also argued that the Agency had erred in not translating two
documents submitted by them in Arabic, namely an agreement signed between the male
complainant and the Egyptian Minister of Education and a newspaper article dated 8
August 2012 in which the company with which the male complainant had a business
arrangement was associated with the Brotherhood. The complainants further noted that, at
the time of their appeal, more than 50,000 supporters of the Brotherhood had been arrested.
They argued that the male complainant’s collaboration with the Brotherhood was sufficient
to deem them supporters of the group. The complainants further claimed that the decision
of the Migration Agency contained inaccuracies. Concerning the visits to Egypt in 2015,
they noted that in early 2015 they had had a short layover at Cairo international airport of
only a few hours before taking a flight to the United Arab Emirates. In October 2015, after
having been expelled from the United Arab Emirates to Egypt, the male complainant stayed
four days in hiding before leaving for Sweden. They claim that the aim of his stay in Egypt
was not to obtain a new passport. The decision of the Migration Agency was upheld by the
Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal on 22 December 2016 and 22 March
2017, respectively. The complainants argue that the State party authorities erred in finding
that they did not have a profile that would indicate that they would be of interest to the
Egyptian authorities or considered to be political opponents. They argue that it is not likely
that the Muslim Brotherhood, for ideological, religious and, partially, security reasons,
would engage in business relationships with persons who are not considered to be among

2

Select target paragraph3