TB6-10340

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-10340 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 7, 2016 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Douglas Lehrer Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has submitted new evidence in support of his appeal and requests an oral hearing if his proposed new evidence raises an issue with respect to his credibility. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the RPD's decision and substitute its own, or order that the RPD reconsider his claim with directions that the RAD considers appropriate. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he is at risk of persecution and harm in Somalia, his home country of nationality. He alleged a fear of majority clans who have persecuted members of his clan, the XXXX. He also alleged a fear of al-Shabaab. [4] The claim for refugee protection was heard on June 8, 2016. By a decision dated June 29, 2016, the RPD rejected the claim finding that the Appellant had not established his identity and his evidence lacked credibility. [5] On appeal to the RAD, the Appellant submits that the RPD was wrong to conclude that he lacked credibility and had not established his identity. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [6] The Appellant refers to the decision of the Court in Huruglica1 and submits that the RAD should review all aspects of the RPD's decision; conduct its own assessment of his identity based on the record and the arguments in his Memorandum; and, having done the above and taking account the totality of the evidence, conduct an independent assessment of whether he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. [7] The RAD notes that the Federal Court of Appeal, in Huruglica, indicated that the role of the RAD is to intervene when the RPD is wrong in law, in fact or in fact and law; and this translates into an application of the correctness standard of review.2 The Court held that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), which raises no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. It went on to indicate that after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD is to carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred. The Court also stated that having done the above, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination.3 [8] Considering the recent jurisprudence, the RAD will conduct its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. Where no issue of credibility of oral evidence was raised, the RAD will apply a standard of correctness when assessing RPD findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. Where the credibility of oral evidence was raised, the RAD will defer to certain findings of the RPD where the RPD enjoyed an advantage over the RAD in assessing the oral evidence of witnesses who appeared before it. The extent of this deference will be assessed on a case-by-case basis dependent upon the particular circumstances of the matter and in conjunction with the RAD's own analysis of the record as a whole. In addition, the standard of correctness will be used for any error of law including a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness found in the RPD decision on appeal to the RAD. Admissibility of evidence submitted on appeal [9] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellant to make full and detailed submissions in his Memorandum of Argument about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) and how that evidence relates to him.4 [10] Where a document meets the test in subsection 110(4), the RAD will conduct a further assessment of that evidence. In Singh,5 the Federal Court of Appeal held that there is no valid reason the RAD cannot apply the criteria set out in Raza6 to the assessment of new evidence. While Raza predates the introduction of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, it is based on nearly identical wording of subsection 113(a). In Raza, the Federal Court of Appeal held that new evidence should be considered for its credibility, relevance, newness, and materiality, in addition to any express statutory provisions.7 In Singh, the Court found that three of the criteria from Raza are necessarily implied in the wording of subsection 110(4).8 The Court has also found materiality to be redundant, as it is also found in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA, which describes when the RAD may hold an oral hearing.9 [11] For these reasons, the RAD will apply the following factors to considering the Appellant's proposed new evidence. It will first consider whether the evidence passes the test in subsection 110(4). If not, the RAD has no discretion to admit the evidence. If the evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4), the RAD will apply the Raza factors, minus the "materiality" factor, as this is to be assessed in light of subsection 110(6) only. [12] The Appellant tendered one document as proposed new evidence in support of his appeal. The document is a written statement10 from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding the sale of a XXXX once owned by the Appellant's father, and the subsequent money transfer to the Appellant. The Appellant points out that the proposed new evidence is a statement from the imam who witnessed the transaction. He maintains that the statement is also collateral evidence of his Somali identity, since it affirms his claim that he lived in Somalia during the time he stated he did. He submits that, without the benefit of the RPD's reasons, he could not have known that it would draw a negative credibility inference about how he obtained funds to come to Canada, and that his answers during the hearing were not satisfactory. He further submits that the statement by the imam is evidence which he could not have been reasonably expected to have provided before the RPD rejected his claim, because at that time he had no means to contact the imam and obtain the evidence now being submitted. [13] In the RAD's view, the written statement from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX does not meet the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) for the following reasons. [14] The Appellant maintains that, without the benefit of the RPD's reasons, he could not have known that the RPD would draw a negative credibility inference about how he obtained funds to come to Canada, and that his answers during the hearing were not satisfactory. The RAD notes that credibility and identity are issues in all claims for refugee protection. Therefore, the Appellant ought to have known that these issues would be considered by the RPD in the determination of his claim. [15] Also, RPD Rule 11 indicates that a refugee claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other elements of the claim. A refugee claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them. Since Somalia's inhabitants have been unable to obtain official identity documents since 1991,11 it would be reasonable to expect the Appellant in this case to have taken steps to obtain documents, such as the statement from the imam, prior to his hearing, let alone prior to the rejection of his claim. The Appellant even indicates in his Memorandum that the statement from the imam is collateral evidence of his Somali identity. Based on the above, the Appellant's argument - that he could not have known that he needed evidence such as the statement from the imam without the benefit of the RPD's reasons - fails. The Appellant has failed to establish that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the statement from the imam at the time his claim was rejected. [16] The second part to the Appellant's argument also fails. The Appellant maintains that the statement by the imam is evidence which he could not have been reasonably expected to have provided before the RPD rejected his claim, because at that time he had no means to contact the imam and obtain the evidence. The Appellant indicates in his affidavit that in XXXX 2016, during a conversation with a friend, he realized that his friend knew the imam who witnessed the sale of his father's business. He also indicates that it was not possible to get the statement prior to the RPD decision because at the time he could not contact the imam or the seller.12 [17] It is important to note that the Appellant fails to explain why he was unable to contact the imam or seller prior to the rejection of his claim. He simply indicates that it was not possible to get the statement from the imam prior to the RPD decision because at the time he could not contact the imam or the seller. He fails to explain what attempts he made to contact the imam or the seller, if any, or why he was unable to make contact with either of them, prior to the rejection of his claim. The Appellant indicated at his hearing that, while in Kenya, he and his family members were in contact with his father's friend in Somalia who arranged the sale of his father's business and the transfer of funds. He also indicated that, while in Kenya, he and his family members were in contact with individuals involved in the transfer of funds from Somalia to Kenya. This suggests that the Appellant had a means of contacting individuals in Somalia and Kenya. The Appellant fails to explain why he was unable to make contact with the imam or the seller, or other who could have provided corroborating evidence, prior to the rejection of his claim. [18] As noted above, RAD Rule 3(3)(g)(iii) indicates that an Appellant's record must contain a memorandum that includes full and detailed submissions regarding how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Act. In this case the Appellant fails to provide full and detailed submissions on why it was not possible to get a statement from the imam, or someone else who could have provided similar information, prior to the rejection of his claim. He also fails to provide full and detailed submissions on why he could not contact the imam or the seller of his father's XXXX, or someone else who could have provided information similar to what the imam provided, prior to the rejection of his claim. Therefore, the RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to establish that the statement from the imam was not reasonably available at the time his claim was rejected. [19] Since the statement from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX does not meet the statutory requirements of 110(4), it will not be accepted as new evidence in this appeal. Request for an oral hearing [20] The Appellant requests that a hearing be held under subsection 110(6) of the Act if the RAD is of the view that the proposed new evidence raises an issue with respect to his credibility.13 [21] When read together, subsections 110(3), (4), and (6) of the IRPA establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new 110(4) evidence, in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. Since no new 110(4) evidence has been accepted in this appeal, the RAD must proceed without a hearing. The Appellant's request for a hearing is therefore denied. MERITS OF THE APPEAL Credibility/Identity Failure to provide documents corroborating his identity [22] The RPD acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining official identity documents from Somalia however noted that the Appellant had failed to provide any other form of documents to corroborate his identity, such as school records, employment or business documents, proof of money transactions, or proof of the sale of his family's home and shop in Somalia. It found the Appellant's failure to provide these types of corroborating documents unreasonable, especially since the Appellant had indicated he had maintained contact with individuals in Kenya and Somalia. The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility and found that the lack of trustworthy and credible corroborating evidence added to its credibility concerns. [23] The Appellant submits that it was unreasonable for the RPD to expect him to provide records of the sale of his father's business. He argues that institutions that would guarantee and enforce the execution of such contracts, and would thus generate a paper record, do not exist. He maintains that transactions are facilitated by being witnessed by respected members of the community who can later testify about the ownership of property if a dispute arises. [24] In the RAD's view, the RPD was not wrong draw a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility from his failure to provide documents from Somalia and Kenya to corroborate his identity. RPD Rule 11 indicates that a refugee claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them. The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he and his family members communicated with individuals in Somalia and Kenya regarding the sale of the family's property in Somalia up until late 2015. He and his family members were able to communicate in person or over the telephone to arrange for the sale of their property in Somalia and the transfer of funds to Kenya. Considering the substantial amount of communication that would be involved in the sale of property from abroad and the transfer of funds from one country to another, one would expect that some of the same avenues of communication would exist for the Appellant after he left Kenya. It would be reasonable to expect that some of those same contacts could provide the Appellant with documents supporting his allegations, including his alleged identity. There is no indication that the Appellant attempted to obtain documents corroborating his allegations, including his alleged identity, from sources in Somalia and Kenya, to establish his identity and support his refugee claim, prior to his claim being rejected. [25] The Appellant argues that it was unreasonable for the RPD to expect him to provide records of the sale of his father's business due to the lack of paper records. However, the Appellant contradicts his own argument by indicating that these types of transactions are facilitated by being witnessed by respected members of the community who can later testify about the ownership of property if a dispute arises. This suggests that there is evidence that can be obtained from Somalia regarding the sale of property as sales are witnessed by respected members of the community. There is no reason to believe that the witness to a sale could not provide a statement confirming the sale; therefore a paper record would be produced. [26] The RAD finds that the Appellant's lack of documents from Somalia and Kenya supporting his allegations and identity, undermines his credibility, including the credibility of the credibility of his alleged identity. Witness testimony [27] The RPD found that the testimony of the identity witness was very vague, as well as being inconsistent with the testimony of the Appellant. Further, it noted that the witness never visited the Appellant's home in Somali and thus could not provide specific details about the Appellant and his family life in Somalia; and the few details provided were very brief and vague. The RPD gave little weight to the testimony of the witness in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations, including his alleged identity. [28] It is important to note that the Appellant makes no argument with respect to the testimony of his identity witness or the inconsistencies noted between his testimony and the testimony of his witness. The RPD was not wrong to give little weight to the testimony of the witness in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations, including his alleged identity. [29] The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he and his grandmother met with his witness and her grandmother in Mogadishu in 2008. He also indicated that he stayed in Mogadishu for one day. However, the Appellant's witness, when asked how long the Appellant and his grandmother visited her and her grandmother in 2008, she said one week or one day. She then said two days. She then said she thought it was one day. It would be reasonable to expect the Appellant's testimony regarding his meeting with his witness in Mogadishu in 2008 to be consistent with his witness's testimony. Not only were their testimonies inconsistent, the witness kept changing her testimony and was unsure of the length of time the Appellant visited her and her grandmother in Mogadishu in 2008. One would expect the witness to remember if the Appellant and his grandmother visited with her and her grandmother for one day or one week, however her testimony wavered from one day to two days to one week. [30] Also, during the hearing, the Appellant indicated that it was only him and his grandmother who visited his witness and her grandmother in 2008, and no one from his mother's side, except his mother's mother, had met his father; however, the witness testified that the Appellant, his grandmother and his father visited her and her grandmother in 2008. When the Appellant was asked to explain the inconsistency, he indicated that his witness had met his father when he was young and thought she had made a mistake. Not only does is the Appellant's explanation unreasonable - his witness confusing a meeting that allegedly occurred a few years ago from one that occurred many years ago - but internally inconsistent because the Appellant had indicated his witness had never met his father. [31] Furthermore, when asked how long the visit with the Appellant, his grandmother, and his father was, the witness said one week or one day. She then said one week. She then said she thought it was two days. Once again the witness's testimony wavered on this point. [32] Based on the above, the RAD gives little weight to the testimony of the witness in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations, including his alleged identity. Hesitant, evasive, and inconsistent testimony regarding the acquisition of money to fund his travel [33] The RPD found the Appellant's responses to questions about acquiring a substantial amount of money from Somalia to fund his travel to Canada to be hesitant, evasive and inconsistent, and it drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility from this. [34] In the RAD's view, the Appellant's testimony about acquiring money from the sale of his father's business in Somalia was vague and lacking in detail. Even though there are various methods of money transfer systems in countries such as Somalia and Kenya, including mobile phone-based money transfers, it would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to provide considerable details regarding the transfer of money from the sale of his father's property in Somalia to him and his family members in Kenya. The Appellant stated in his Basis of Claim narrative that, "The friend of my father was able to sell the shop and sent us the money in Nairobi". At his hearing, the Appellant provided a very non-detailed account of the transaction. The RAD draws a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility from this. Inconsistent evidence regarding timeline of events [35] The RPD noted an inconsistency in the Appellant's evidence regarding the timeline of his employment at his father's XXXX. It drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility from the inconsistency. [36] The Appellant indicated in his Basis of Claim form that he attended school until 1988, and worked at the XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX 2006 until XXXX 2015.14 However, at his hearing, when asked why he stopped attending school in 1988, the Appellant indicated that he was not allowed to continue schooling due to his clan affiliation so he started working at his father's XXXX. When asked if he had started working with his father in 1988, the Appellant said that he was in training and then he started working in 2006. When he was asked what he did between 1988 and 2006, the Appellant said he was just helping. [37] In the RAD's view, the Appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for an inconsistency in his evidence regarding his activities between 1988 and 2006. If the Appellant was in training and helping at his father's XXXX between 1988 and 2006 as he explained, it would be reasonable to expect him to have said so when first asked by the RPD about what he did after he finished his schooling in 1988; however the Appellant said that he started working at the XXXX. The RAD finds that the inconsistency, without a reasonable explanation, further undermines the Appellant's credibility, including the credibility of his alleged identity. No record of Appellant's entry into Canada [38] The RPD noted that there was no record of the Appellant's entry into Canada under the name on his fraudulently obtained Australian passport. It found that this added to its concerns regarding the Appellant's credibility. [39] The Appellant submits that he may have provided an inaccurate spelling of the name which he saw in the passport. He maintains that he only had access to the passport for brief moments of time, when he had to show it to airline staff or border officials; at other times the passport was held by the smuggler who brought him to Canada. He argues that it was possible he did not recall the exact spelling of the name of the man whose passport he was carrying which explains why there was no matching record. He maintains that he was being truthful about what country's passport he was travelling on, and whose name was in the passport. He submits that the RPD erred in drawing a negative credibility inference. [40] In the RAD's view, the Appellant's argument fails for the following reasons. The Appellant indicated at his hearing that on or about XXXX XXXX, 2016, his agent and the woman he would be travelling to Canada with began the a process of having the him memorize things such as the name on the passport he would be using and the name of the woman he would be travelling with. This contradicts the Appellant's contention that it was possible he did not recall the exact spelling of the name of the man whose passport he was carrying because he only had access to the passport for brief moments. There was a concerted effort made by the Appellant's agent and the woman he travelled to Canada with to have the Appellant memorize the name contained in the passport he would be travelling with. One would expect the Appellant to have accurately memorized the name on the passport he was travelling with on XXXX XXXX, 2016, when he began his travels, and to accurately record the same name on his Schedule 1215 in early XXXX 2016, when he completed the form. It is important to note that the Appellant has XXXX XXXX of formal education. Also, he allegedly studied English at a private school in Somalia. Considering that the Appellant started to memorize the name in his fraudulent passport more than one week before he began his travel to Canada and considering that he is fairly well educated, it would be reasonable to expect him to have correctly memorized the details in his fraudulent passport, including the name and correct spelling of his alias. The fact that there was no record of the Appellant's entry into Canada under the name on his fraudulently obtained Australian passport further undermines the Appellant's credibility. Inconsistency in the Appellant's evidence regarding his date of birth [41] The RPD noted an inconsistency in the Appellant's evidence regarding his date of birth. It noted that the Appellant testified at his hearing that his date of birth is XXXX XXXX, 1970 whereas he had indicated in his Basis of Claim Form (BoC) that his date of birth is XXXX XXXX, 1970. The RPD also noted that the letter from the XXXX XXXX indicated the Appellant's date of birth as XXXX XXXX, 1970. The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility for the clearly inconsistent evidence as to his date of birth. [42] The Appellant submits that he provided an explanation for the inconsistency. He points out that he testified that he "told them February <inaudible>" and submits that "them" meant the interpreter and lawyer who were helping him prepare the BoC prior to his hearing. He submits that the date of birth discrepancy was clearly a clerical error, and it was an error present only on the BoC. The Appellant also submits that the RPD made an erroneous factual finding by indicating that the letter from the XXXX XXXX community organization details his date of birth as XXXX XXXX, 1970 when the letter lists his date of birth as XXXX XXXX, 1970. He submits that it was an error for the RPD to impugn his credibility. [43] Upon a review of the evidence, the RAD concurs with the Appellant that the RPD was wrong to indicate that his date of birth in the XXXX XXXX letter is XXXX XXXX, 1970 when it in fact states his date of birth as XXXX XXXX, 1970.16 However, notwithstanding this error, the Appellant's evidence regarding his date of birth remains inconsistent. It is clear that he indicated in his BoC17 that his date of birth is XXXX XXXX, 1970 whereas he testified at his hearing and indicated in his Generic Application Form for Canada18 that his date of birth is XXXX XXXX, 1970. The Appellant's argument that it was a clerical error is without merit. Considering the importance of establishing one's identity, especially in cases from Somalia where there is a lack of official identity documents, it would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to have verified the information in his documents. The Appellant's BoC contains an interpreter's declaration indicating that the entire content of the form was accurately interpreted to him from the English language to the Somali language and that the Appellant assured the interpreter that he understood the entire content of the form and the answers provided, as interpreted. The Appellant's BoC also contains the Appellant's signed declaration indicating that the information he provided in the form was complete, true and correct. The Appellant confirmed at the outset of his hearing that the information in his BoC was complete, true, and correct. [44] Had there been no other inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence, the inconsistency regarding his date of birth would have been rather insignificant. However, considering the many anomalies in the Appellant's evidence, especially surrounding his identity, the RAD finds that the inconsistency in the Appellant's evidence regarding his date of birth is significant and further undermines his credibility. Letter from the XXXX XXXX community organization and testimony in Somali language at hearing [45] The RPD noted that the letter from XXXX XXXX provided only very general information regarding the Appellant, originating primarily from the Appellant himself. It gave little weight to the letter in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations, including his identity, in light of inconsistent evidence and its cumulative credibility concerns. The RPD found that the Appellant's ability to provide his testimony through a Somali interpreter and his ability to provide some general information about Somali was insufficient to establish his personal identity and national identity. [46] The Appellant submits that XXXX XXXX is a credible organization that is supported by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and has over 20 years of providing settlement services to individuals coming from the Horn of Africa. He submits that the RAD must analyze and assign appropriate probative value to the XXXX XXXX letter, untainted by the RPD's erroneous findings. [47] Although the RPD incorrectly stated that the XXXX XXXX letter had the Appellant's date of birth as XXXX XXXX, 1970, the RAD concurs with the RPD's assignment of little weight to the letter. There is no indication in the letter that the author or anyone at XXXX XXXX knew the Appellant prior to the Appellant seeking their assistance, yet XXXX XXXX confirms that the Appellant is a native from Somalia and a citizen of the Somali Republic. There is no indication in the letter that the author or anyone at XXXX XXXX knew of the Appellant's circumstances prior to the Appellant seeking their assistance. With respect to the Appellant's circumstances, the XXXX XXXX merely indicates what the Appellant attested to in an oral interview. The Appellant is without identity documents from Somalia. Based on the above, it is unlikely that XXXX XXXX can categorically confirm the Appellant's identity as a citizen of Somalia. It is also unlikely that XXXX XXXX can categorically confirm the Appellant's circumstances. [48] The RAD considered the fact that the Appellant testified in the Somali language and was assessed by XXXX XXXX in the Somali language. The ability to speak a language does not establish a person's personal identity nor can it establish a person's citizenship. This is especially relevant for individuals who speak Somali, given that this language is spoken in countries such as Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia.19 It is important to note that the Appellant alleges to have been in Kenya and Ethiopia, countries where Somali is spoken. The RAD concurs with the RPD in assigning little weight to the fact that the Appellant can speak and understand Somali and has a general knowledge of Somalia. The RAD gives the letter from XXXX XXXX, and the Appellant's knowledge of Somalia and the Somali language, little weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations, including his identity. Summary [49] The RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible evidence of his identity; he has failed to provide reasonable explanations for the lack of documentation; and he has failed to take reasonable steps to prove his identity as per section 106 of the IRPA. The Federal Court has established that the burden of proof to establish a claim lies with the refugee claimant. A refugee claimant must come to a hearing with all of the evidence that they have to offer and believe necessary to prove the claim.20 The Board may draw a negative inference from a refugee claimant's lack of effort in acquiring evidence to establish their identity since rule 11 of the RPD rules clearly states that the refugee claimant must provide such documents. [50] The RAD concurs with the RPD's conclusion on identity. The Appellant has not met the burden to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities as set out in section 106 of the IRPA. DISPOSITION [51] Based on a review of the totality of the evidence, and pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD. The Appellant has not met the burden to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities as set out in section 106 of the IRPA. He is therefore not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [52] The appeal is therefore dismissed. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella November 7, 2016 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, para. 78. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, para. 103. 4 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, Section 3(3)(g)(iii). 5 M.C.I. v. Singh, Parminder (F.C.A., No. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, De Montigny, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 96. (F.C., No. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014; 2014 FC 1022. 6 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007; 2007 FCA 385. 7 Raza, 2007 FCA 385, paras. 13-15. 8 Singh, 2016 FCA 96, para. 64. 9 Singh, 2016 FCA 96, para. 48. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 14-15. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Somalia, 29 April 2016, item 3.2, at p.4. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 11. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 7. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 32. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 35-38. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 214. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 10. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 26. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Somalia, 29 April 2016, item 3.5. 20 Kante, Abdoulaye v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2585-93), Nadon, March 23, 1994. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-10340