CCPR/C/122/D/2292/2013
on the night of 24–25 December 2012. In the Federal Court’s view, disbelieving the
relationship between the author and Hany and the fact that they had been assaulted and
disbelieving claims about the author’s sexual orientation were two completely separate
issues. A precise conclusion was necessary, especially since the agent who had omitted to
make a determination regarding the author’s sexual orientation had also recognized that
there was documentary evidence that homosexuals were at risk in Egypt and were subjected
to a degree of violence and discrimination.
2.10 On 21 August 2014, a new PRRA agent began the reconsideration of the author’s
application. On 5 and 22 September and 29 October 2014, the author submitted additional
information and documents, including a letter from his general practitioner, noting a
diagnosis of post-traumatic stress and a depressive state, as well as scars left by the assault;8
a psychological report;9 and letters from five pastors. In addition, the author notes that his
apostasy had been publicized on the Internet by Inna 10 and shared with his sister, who had
forwarded the post to the author’s friends and acquaintances. He also noted that, since the
Egyptian authorities monitored the Internet, it was possible that they were aware of the
information. On 21 January 2015, an all-day hearing was held with the PRRA agent. On 22,
23, 26 and 30 January 2015 and 20 February 2015, the author made written submissions
describing his fears of being persecuted on account of his conversion to Christianity, his
sexual orientation and political opinions that had been ascribed to him. He also submitted
documents describing the human rights situation in Egypt and claimed that he faced
additional risk because his sister, a famous actress, and her husband, an influential judge in
Egypt, had reported him to friends, family members and the authorities.
2.11 On 26 February 2015, the author’s PRRA application was rejected owing to a lack
of credibility. The agent considered that the author had a great ability to easily adapt his
statement but that the myriad contradictions and improbabilities proved that his story had
been fabricated to obtain protection in Canada. In the agent’s view, the author had not
demonstrated that there was anything more than a mere possibility of persecution, as
defined in article 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and he had failed to
establish that he would run a risk of death, torture or other harm enumerated in article 97 of
the Act. Regarding the author’s conversion, the agent found that, notwithstanding his
knowledge of Christianity, his baptism and his church attendance, the author was not a
“genuine Christian”11 and that he had gained knowledge of Christianity in order to
embellish his claim for protection. The agent also found that the author had failed to prove
beyond a mere possibility that he would be perceived as having converted to Christianity
were he to return to Egypt.12 As to the author’s homosexuality, the agent had considered the
author’s three homosexual relationships in Egypt and had concluded that he was not gay
owing to a lack of evidence that he had entered into homosexual relationships prior to his
arrival in Canada or that he would adopt a homosexual lifestyle or engage in homosexual
activity if he returned to Egypt. Since there was little more than a “possibility of
8
9
10
11
12
4
Letter of 16 October 2014 from a doctor at the clinic for asylum seekers and refugees in Montreal, in
which the doctor mentions that the author has “scarring on his back, shoulders and scalp due to the
attack described above”.
The psychological assessment report of 3 September 2014 states that the author “still shows signs of
post-traumatic stress, combined with a depressive state and difficulty focusing and memorizing, but
mostly an all-encompassing anxiety at the thought of returning to his country of origin since his
homosexuality and conversion to Christianity have been revealed”.
The author also noted that Inna had recently assaulted him and had been formally charged. In his
opinion, Inna is unstable and resents him for refusing to have an intimate relationship with her.
Therefore, he requested that she not be contacted as a witness because her intention was to harm his
case to force him to leave Canada.
The decision in original English mentions that the author “is not a genuine Christian adherent and that
he obtained his knowledge of Christianity in order to embellish a claim for protection”.
The agent mentioned, inter alia, that even though the author had provided a copy of his baptism
certificate, he had been unable at the hearing to state the exact date of his baptism, the Christian
denomination to which he subscribed or the sacraments. Moreover, when the author had provided
information on Islam, he had used the pronoun “we” whereas he used the term “Christians” when
referring to Christianity, which called into question his allegiance to that religion.
GE.18-09612