He Spent His Life in Egypt: The Egyptian Center Challenges the Detention and Deportation Order of a Palestinian Refugee

The Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR) has filed an urgent lawsuit before the Administrative Court of the State Council, on behalf of the Palestinian refugee Hashim A. H., against the President of the Republic, the Minister of Interior, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in their official capacities. The case challenges the decision to deport the plaintiff from Egypt, seeking his immediate release and ensuring his continued protection as a refugee residing on Egyptian territory until a fair and safe solution to his legal status is reached.

The plaintiff, born in Gaza City in 1964, moved with his family to Egypt in 1965, when he was an infant less than one year old. Since then, he has lived permanently in Egypt for more than six decades, during which he married and fathered three daughters. He has never left Egypt and does not hold the nationality or travel documents of any state, including the Palestinian authorities. Throughout these years, he has been recognized and treated as a legally resident Palestinian refugee in Egypt.

In 2019, the plaintiff was defrauded by individuals who deceived him into believing they could help him obtain a birth certificate for his Egyptian grandmother, with the aim of applying for Egyptian nationality. This led to his prosecution on charges of forgery of an official document, for which he served a five-year prison sentence.

Upon completing his sentence, he was unexpectedly subjected to a second criminal case based on the same facts, in which the court issued a one-year suspended sentence on May 7, 2025. Since that date, he has been detained at the First 6th of October Police Station. His family was subsequently informed of a deportation order to Malaysia, issued without referral to any competent authority or any reasoned legal decision revoking his refugee status.

The lawsuit asserts that this measure constitutes a clear violation of Law No. 164 of 2024 regulating asylum in Egypt, whose Article (1) defines a refugee as any person unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin due to a well-founded fear of persecution, occupation, or serious threats. These conditions fully apply to the plaintiff, who lacks Palestinian documentation, cannot be returned to Gaza under current circumstances, and has no other state willing to receive him.

Moreover, no decision has been issued by the competent committee revoking his refugee status, contrary to Articles 9, 13, 33, and 35 of the same law, which set out the grounds and procedures for termination of refugee status, deportation, or withdrawal, and emphasize the importance of notifying the refugee and providing a right of defense.

The challenged decision also violates Law No. 89 of 1960 on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners, which stipulates that deportation may only be executed by a reasoned decision of the Minister of Interior, following review by a specialized committee comprising representatives of several sovereign bodies. The law further provides that foreigners holding special residence permits may be deported only if their presence poses a threat to national security or public order — conditions clearly inapplicable to the plaintiff, who has lived peacefully in Egypt for more than sixty years without committing any act endangering national security or stability.

The petition underscores the gravity of this decision, describing it as a flagrant breach of international obligations, foremost among them the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which prohibits the expulsion or forcible return (refoulement) of refugees to territories where their lives or freedom would be at risk. The Convention also explicitly guarantees the refugee’s right to defend himself before a competent authority. Similarly, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits the expulsion of lawfully resident foreigners without affording them the right to appeal and defend themselves — guarantees which were entirely denied to Mr. Hashim.

The lawsuit concludes that the measure taken against the plaintiff constitutes an administrative decision that is unlawful both procedurally and substantively, in violation of the Constitution and the law. It further represents an encroachment on the prerogatives of the legislative authority and a violation of fundamental legal safeguards. Accordingly, the decision is highly likely to be annulled when the case is adjudicated on its merits. The case also satisfies the urgency requirement, given the irreparable harm that would result from executing the decision — most notably, the violation of the plaintiff’s right to life and security, and his forcible separation from his family, who have known no home other than Egypt.

It is noteworthy that the ECESR previously obtained the first court ruling of its kind concerning refugee protection in Egypt, when, in July 2010, the Administrative Court of the State Council ordered the suspension of a deportation order against a Sudanese refugee and his release from the deportation detention center, allowing him to remain in Egypt on the grounds that the deportation violated international refugee protection conventions.

The Center also recently convened a roundtable of legal experts following Parliament’s approval of Egypt’s first asylum law, pending ratification by the President. During the discussion, experts expressed reservations regarding several ambiguous provisions of the law and called for measures to guarantee refugees’ rights.

Participants voiced concern over a number of vague and loosely formulated articles, warning that such ambiguity could serve as a double-edged sword concerning the rights and legal status of refugees. They agreed that a comprehensive assessment of the law’s implications would only be possible upon the issuance of its executive regulations, which must include precise terminology and clear procedures to ensure the protection and regularization of refugees and asylum seekers in line with international treaties and conventions.