TB9-10678

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-10678 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision 20 August 2020 Date de la décision Panel S. Thompson Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Tina Hlimi 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, alleges he is a citizen of Somalia. He is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated April 3, 2019, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. [2] For the following reasons, I dismiss this appeal. BACKGROUND OF APPEAL The Appellant's claim, the RPD's decision, and the Appellant's arguments before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [3] The Appellant alleged he is originally from Somalia and belongs to the XXXX or XXXX clan, a minority clan that suffered from discrimination and targeting, including torture and killing at the hands of majority clans. He fled with his mother to Kenya when the war broke out and alleged that they lived in the Dadaab refugee camp from 1992 onward. [4] After he returned to Somalia, he secretly married a woman from the majority Ogaden clan, a clan with a strong connection to Al-Shabaab. The Appellant alleged that on XXXX XXXX, 2015, a group of Ogaden men killed his father and elder brother in reprisal for his marriage to their clanswoman. The Appellant applied for refugee protection in Canada on August 3, 2016, alleging a fear of persecution from his alleged wife's family and also Al-Shabaab as a returnee from the West. [5] The RPD refused the Appellant's claim on the grounds of identity and credibility. The RPD accepted the Appellant was "more likely than not [...] of Somali background and has spent periods of time in Somalia", but found he had not established on a balance of probabilities that he was "a national of Somalia at times material to the claim." It found further that the Appellant "failed to adequately resolve significant allegations in areas foundational to the issue of [his] identity". The RPD "doubt[ed] the truthfulness of his testimony and other evidence."1 [6] The Appellant submits he has established his identity on a balance of probabilities. He submits the RPD erred in accepting submissions from the Minister's Counsel that the Appellant's professed XXXX clan identity was undermined by his allegation that he belonged to a XXXX sub-clan, an allegation rebutted by country evidence before the RPD. He submits that, "given the lack of knowledge about the XXXX clan" and because "[his] sub-clan is not documented in any of the limited evidence", his testimony about his membership in a XXXX sub-clan should be given the benefit of the doubt.2 [7] The Appellant also submits that the documents from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) show he "did register at the Dagahaley refugee camp in Kenya in 1992" and that this, along with his UNHCR case summary registration document, are strong evidence supporting his professed identity as a citizen of Somalia. He submits he should be given "the benefit of the doubt [...] that he is a national of Somalia and a member of the minority XXXX clan."3 [8] The Appellant alleges that he is a Somali citizen who faces a serious forward-looking risk of persecution in Somalia and that he is a Convention refugee.4 NEW EVIDENCE Notice regarding any document or written submissions in light of the COVID-19 pandemic [9] On June 15, 2020, the Board provided Counsel with a notice related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This notice advised Counsel that they have 30 days from the date that they receive this notice to submit any document or written submissions in support of the appeal. They were also advised that any document or written submissions in support of the appeal will be accepted without an application and that the other requirements of Rule 29 and 110(4) continue to apply. Counsel has not submitted any document or written submissions in response to this notice. Applications under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and RAD rule 29 [10] As part of his RAD appeal record, the Appellant has asked me to admit a document entitled "The XXXX XXXXof Southern Somalia and the Asylum Process"5 as new evidence in this appeal in accordance with subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [11] In a Rule 29 application dated July 23, 2020, the Appellant has also asked me to admit two additional documents as new evidence. The first is a supporting letter from Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX dated June 1, 2019. The second is a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX of Toronto dated June 18, 2019. [12] By law,6 I can only accept as new evidence material that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that you could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [13] If the material meets one or more of these requirements, I must then decide if the material is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it as new evidence.7 Decision on the application to admit new evidence Application under IRPA ss. 110(4): "XXXX XXXX XXXX of Southern Somalia and the Asylum Process" [14] The Appellant's affidavit of June 26, 2019 states that the document should be accepted because its author "states quite clearly that XXXX peoples have been refused asylum because of the clan he or she uses, which is not recognized by the court", and because it supports his assertion that he "belong[s] to the XXXX sub-clan of the XXXX, which both the Minister and the RPD Panel alleged did not exist."8 In his appeal memorandum, the Appellant submits the document "should be accepted as new evidence as it was only located recently and rebuts a central issue in the RPD's decision, namely that the XXXX sub-clan of the XXXX does not exist."9 [15] I have reviewed the document and its content suggests it post-dates item 13.5 in the current compilation of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia, which itself dates from the year 2000. As the document is undated, however, I am unable to ascertain with any certainty whether it meets the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. I therefore have no discretion to admit it into evidence in these proceedings. Consequently, the application to admit the document as new evidence is refused. Rule 29 Application dated July 23, 2020 [16] Under RAD sub-Rule 29(3), the subject of the appeal "must include in an application to use a document that was not previously provided an explanation of how the document meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the [IRPA] and how that evidence relates to the person, unless the document is being presented in response to evidence presented by the Minister." [17] In his Rule 29 submissions, the Appellant's counsel writes that the two letters address the issue of the Appellant's identity and "both confirm the Appellant's nationality and his clan affiliation"10 in response to the issue of his identity which "remains a significant issue in [his] claim"11 and "were only provided by the Appellant to [her] office recently".12 Based on the foregoing, it is my independent assessment that the Appellant's Rule 29 application meets the requirements of sub-Rule 29(3). [18] Regarding the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, I find both letters satisfy the statutory requirements of the subsection, as they both post-date the RPD's refusal of the Appellant's claim on February 23, 2019. The letters are prima facie credible, and while their content is not particularly novel, it is relevant to my determination of this appeal. I will therefore admit both documents into evidence. ANALYSIS [19] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.13 I will apply the correctness standard of review after independently assessing the record in order to determine whether the RPD erred. I will only show deference to the RPD's credibility assessment and/or to its weighing of the oral evidence in situations where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage. If I find the RPD had a particular advantage, my reasons will explain why. [20] My determination is based on my independent assessment of the evidence before me. This includes: the records prepared by the RPD and the Appellant; transcripts and audio recordings of both sittings of the Appellant's RPD hearings on February 23, 2018 and September 12, 2018; and documents contained in the current compilation of the NDP for Somalia. The Appellant's UNHCR documents [21] The Appellant submits that the documents from the UNHCR14 that he disclosed to the RPD confirm that his name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX states that 1991 is his year of birth, lists his nationality as Somali from Somalia, and identifies his place of birth as Kismayo in Somalia.15 The Appellant points to the fact that certain documents in the NDP for Somalia "confirm that the XXXX population is found in Kismayo" and on the Bajuni Islands "off of the coast of the port city of Kismayo" as establishing his identity as a Somali citizen.16 He also asserts the photo on the UNHCR case summary registration document in particular is readily identifiable as him.17 [22] The RPD made no findings concerning the Appellant's UNHCR documents. Having examined those documents, I find they are insufficient to establish his identity as a national of Somalia on a balance of probabilities. First, the May 2018 letter from the UNHCR confirms only that a person with the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX was a resident in the Dadaab Refugee Camp in Dagahalay "from 1992 until he spontaneously departed from the camp between February 2013 and July 2014."18 [23] The letter states also that the named person's "bio-data details were inactivated in UNHCR's database" after he failed to attend the camp's "population verification exercise [in] 2014."19 As a result, the bio-data stated in the UNHCR's Case Summary document cannot be verified with reference to the camp's most recent identity verification exercise in 2014. Finally, the photo included in the UNHCR case summary document is so difficult to make out that I cannot ascertain whether the person depicted in the photograph does resemble the photo of the Appellant included in the immigration intake documents in the RPD record. [24] In light of these findings, the fact that the UNHCR Case Summary document identifies the person depicted as "XXXX" is immaterial since, in my independent assessment, the Case Summary document is insufficient to establish the Appellant's personal identity, let alone his identity as a national of Somalia. [25] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the May 2008 letter from UNCHR Legal Officer XXXX XXXX, while instructive as to the status of the Appellant's registration with officials managing the Dadaab refugee camp, warrants little weight for the purpose of establishing the Appellant's personal and national identity. I find also that the UNHCR Case Summary document warrants no weight for this particular purpose. The Appellant's professed XXXX clan identity [26] The Appellant's submissions concerning his professed XXXX identity are essentially that the evidence about the XXXX of Somalia is limited and internally inconsistent, and that in light of this, his testimony and other evidence about being XXXX should be given the benefit of the doubt and, in fact, preferred to the evidence on the XXXX in the NDP and other documents. [27] The RPD found the Appellant failed to establish his XXXX clan background, which was "[a] central element of the [Appellant's] alleged fear of serious harm at the hands of [...] Al-Shabab and others in Somalia".20 [28] The RPD noted the Appellant's own counsel conceded the Appellant "could not be expected to have more than minimal knowledge of the XXXX context". Despite this, the RPD described the Appellant's testimony about the XXXX as "basic" and capable of being gained through "a very basic archival and guided oral study of the XXXX". The panel accepted the Minister's submission "that the [Appellant's] XXXX sub clan is not listed as a sub clan of the XXXX." As well, the RPD "reasonably [...] expected that after some five years of living and working with his brother and father in Kismayo" the Appellant "would be able to name at least one of the Bajuni islands in Somalia."21 [29] Concerning the RPD's finding about the Appellant's knowledge of the Bajuni islands, my review of the transcript of the second sitting of the RPD hearing shows the Appellant identified one of the islands off Kismayo as "Lamoo".22 Although his counsel re-stated the Appellant's utterance as "Lamalan"23, in my independent assessment, the Appellant's testimony appears to refer to Lamu, a coastal community in Kenya.24 [30] Later, when the RPD asked the Appellant to name some coastal areas where the XXXX live, the Appellant said he did not remember.25 I find the Appellant's testimony about the Bajuni islands does not support a finding that he belongs to Somalia's XXXX clan. [31] Concerning the Appellant's testimony about his membership in a sub-clan, during the hearing the Appellant testified that he belonged to the XXXX, XXXX or XXXX sub-clan of the XXXX. He was unable to say how many XXXX sub-clans there were, and explained it was because he "grew up in a refugee camp" and so only knew "the sub clan of XXXX."26 [32] In my independent assessment, the reliability of the Appellant's testimony about XXXX sub-clans is undermined by what he admitted was his lack of familiarity with the subject-matter. I reject, however, the Appellant's submission that it is "entirely possible that the XXXX clan is a sub-clan of the XXXX", not only because of the Appellant's unreliable testimony on the subject, but also because, as I explain below, this submission is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence - evidence which indicates that, on a balance of probabilities, the XXXX have no sub-clans. [33] In post-hearing written submissions,27 the Appellant's counsel critiqued the Minister's reliance on item 13.5 in the NDP for Somalia, the report of a joint fact-finding mission dating from the year 2000 on the XXXX of Somalia. In response, the Appellant's counsel disclosed a review of that report dating from June 2010 that disputes the original fact-finding mission report's findings concerning the XXXX XXXX Relying on the June 2010 review, the Appellant's counsel disputed the Minister's submission that the XXXX do not have sub-clans. [34] Having read this document, I give it no weight for the purpose for which it was disclosed by the Appellant's counsel to the RPD. While the written submissions state the document is "from Memorial University", the document's authorship is not attributed to an individual or group of individuals. My several attempts to access the document using the hyperlink given on its first page were unsuccessful. I therefore have no way of knowing who authored the report, which frustrates my efforts to determine its reliability. [35] In short, the NDP is part of the record for the benefit of the Board and claimants in every single hearing; it is widely accepted, and known, and the content of the NDP's sources for country of origin information are reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. By contrast, the Appellant has not established with credible and trustworthy evidence that item 13.5 is from an unreliable source. [36] Item 13.5 says a UNHCR genealogical table describes the XXXX "as a XXXX sub-clan", but that the fact-finding mission's delegate "did not [...] receive information from any other source that indicated that this was the case."28 Item 13.5 does not indicate the XXXX have any sub-clans.29 [37] Concerning their links to other clans in Somalia, a December 2009 report from the Austrian Red Cross Society, also included in the current NDP compilation for Somalia, describes the XXXX as not a clan but rather as a minority of Arabic descent.30 An August 2017 report from the Danish Demining Group describes the XXXX as "culturally and linguistically distinct from Somalis, and [...] no part of a Somali lineage."31 [38] In my independent assessment, the evidence does not support a finding that the RPD erred in relying on item 13.5 to assess the Appellant's testimony about his membership in a XXXX sub-clan. I reject paragraphs 16 to 25 of the Appellant's written submissions on this subject. [39] I turn now to the two letters disclosed in the Appellant's Rule 29 application. First, the June 1, 2019 letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX states that he met the Appellant in Kenya in 2001 while visiting relatives in the Dadaab refugee camp, and that he knows the Appellant's "half sister XXXX XXXX XXXX and [...] was close friend[s] to her when [they] were together in Mombasa or Dadab refugee camp."32 [40] While I accept that Mr. XXXX was not aware the Appellant was in Toronto until April 2019, after the RPD refused the latter's claim, I find Mr. XXXX letter does not offer any information that supports a finding that the Appellant is XXXX. The letter states simply that MR. XXXX had a "good relationship" with the Appellant, but says nothing about the frequency and nature of their interactions in Kenya. [41] The June 18, 2019 letter from Mr. XXXX XXXX of the the XXXX XXXX XXXX of Toronto asserts that the Appellant is a Somali citizen and a XXXX person based on an interview conducted "[o]n February, 2019". Mr. XXXX states he asked the Appellant about "his background, places that he resided, people that he may have known, the history of XXXX, the geography of the coastal areas as well as the familiarity of Somalia in general".33 The letter fails, however, to summarize the Appellant's answers, beyond stating that he explained "the history of the coastal areas and the history of [the] XXXX people".34 This is knowledge that, in my opinion, could be acquired by reading objective sources. [42] Moreover, the letter states the Appellant's fear was based on "the Somali civil war and Shabaab subjugations in particular"35 and does not mention the Appellant's main allegation, that his father and brother were killed by members of the majority Ogaden clan in reprisal for the Appellant's relationship with a woman of that clan. In short, the letter's account of the Appellant's subjective fear of persecution varies significantly from the subjective fear articulated by the Appellant himself across his various Basis of Claim (BOC) forms and affidavits. [43] It is my independent assessment that both letters, taken individually and cumulatively, are insufficient to remedy the serious credibility issues undermining the Appellant's testimony and other evidence about his personal and ethno-cultural identity. I give both letters no weight for the purpose of establishing either the Appellant's XXXX ethno-cultural identity or his identity as a citizen of Somalia. The RPD's other findings [44] The RPD's negative determination did not focus exclusively on the Appellant's evidence about his sub-clan membership and his knowledge of the islands near and south of Kismayo, identified in the NDP documents as the traditional homeland of the XXXX XXXX The RPD also found: 1. That discrepancies between the Appellant's evidence and that of his identity witness, XXXX XXXX XXXX, were not adequately resolved; 2. That the affidavit of the Appellant's mother was inconsistent with the Appellant's testimony about when his elder brother and father died; 3. That the affidavit of the Appellant's spouse was inconsistent with the Appellant's testimony about when key events at the heart of his claim allegedly took place;36 4. That the Appellant's evidence failed to establish that he was married;37 5. That the events and incidents the Appellant alleged in his refugee claim in Norway contradicted the allegations in his amended BOC narrative;38 and 6. That the psychotherapist's report warranted little weight.39 [45] I have examined these findings and in my independent assessment the RPD did not err in making any of these findings. [46] First, the RPD referenced inconsistencies between the Appellant's oral testimony and the testimony of the identity witness identified by the Minister in his written submissions of October 26, 2018.40 Although the RPD did not make an explicit negative credibility finding, having reviewed the transcript, I find the RPD did not err in relying on the inconsistencies identified in the Minister's written submissions, which are supported by my review of the transcript. [47] For example, the Minister's counsel wrote: that the Appellant's identity witness "knew only superficial information about the [Appellant's] family" and gave limited testimony about the Appellant's father's XXXX XXXX; and that the witness's testimony that he was "a XXXX XXXX in Guelph" contradicted the Appellant's testimony that the witness "worked at a XXXX in Kitchener".41 [48] My review of the transcript of the first sitting of the hearing bears out the Minister's counsel's written submissions regarding inconsistencies between the testimony of the Appellant and his identity witness about the Appellant's father's XXXX XXXX42 and the witness's work situation.43 [49] Concerning the Appellant's family, the witness testified he never met the Appellant's mother, and that he only knew the Appellant's mother was in Kenya because the Appellant told him so, and that he didn't know when she went to Kenya.44 Although the witness testified he knew how many siblings the Appellant had, he was able to identify only the Appellant's late father and brother by name, and did not know the Appellant's father's full name.45 [50] In my independent assessment, however, the following exchange between the Appellant's identity witness and the RPD panel is most instructive: RPD PANEL: Do you have any independent knowledge of his background and story other than what he has told you? WITNESS: No, I only know what he told me.46 [51] The fact that the identity witness's testimony was entirely informed by the Appellant, calls into question the reliability of the witness's testimony, given the problems with the Appellant's credibility. In my independent assessment, the RPD did not err in finding the witness's testimony was inadequate to establish not only the Appellant's personal identity, but also his identity as a national of Somalia. [52] Second, the affidavit of the Appellant's mother states that her first spouse and their son XXXX were killed in Kismayo in June 2015.47 Third, the affidavit of the Appellant's spouse states that his father and his brother XXXX "were killed by [her] family and [her] tribe members [in] June 2015".48 [53] While the content of both affidavits is consistent with statements made in the Appellant's BOC form of August 201649 and with this first amendment to his BOC narrative dated April 2016,50 it is inconsistent with his second amended BOC form of February 2018, which states that he left Somalia for Ethiopia on XXXX XXXX, 2014, immediately after members of the Ogaden clan killed his brother and father.51 [54] When the Minister's counsel asked the Appellant about the inconsistency in his evidence and his mother's affidavit, the Appellant testified he told her to write it down June 2015 "because [he] was afraid that if [he] mentioned that [he had been in] Norway that [he] would be deported back."52 [55] In my independent assessment, the Appellant's overall credibility is undermined by his admission that he directed the content of his mother's affidavit in an attempt to mislead the RPD's assessment of his claim. [56] The Minister's counsel also asked the Appellant about the inconsistency between his evidence and his spouse's affidavit: MINISTER'S COUNSEL: So in your wife's affidavit where she mentions that you were kidnapped and arrested in March 2015 and held for three months and that your father and brother were killed in June 2015, why is she giving dates in 2015 (inaudible) 2014? CLAIMANT: Because of fear that I had from the United States, I never told the true story about when I left the country. MINISTER'S COUNSEL: Okay. That's all well and good, why is she saying that in her affidavit as to what happened? CLAIMANT: Because when I left Norway and came to the United States that's exactly I told her, but because of fear. MINISTER'S COUNSEL: So she is willing to make untrue statements to support your claim? CLAIMANT: When I was coming here for the court I was told to bring my right case and right information and that's why I'm here to tell the truth today. MINISTER'S COUNSEL: What do you mean you were told to bring the right case and right information? CLAIMANT: I said I was in Norway the first time.53 [57] While I accept the Appellant's testimony that he was motivated to tell the truth before the RPD, I note that the affidavit of the Appellant's spouse was part of a package of documents disclosed to the RPD on September 15, 2016, and post-dates not only the determination of his refugee claim in Norway in XXXX 201554 and his order of removal from the United States of America on XXXX XXXX, 201655 (which followed the refusal of his asylum claim in that country on XXXX XXXX, 201556), but also his entry to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 201657 when he initiated his refugee claim. [58] Despite this, the Appellant did not disclose that he had directed his spouse to give content in her affidavit that could be viewed as intentionally misleading until the Minister's counsel raised the inconsistency during the second sitting of his hearing, just over two years after he disclosed the affidavit to the RPD. [59] In my independent assessment, the Appellant's explanations to the Minister's counsel cannot justify the inconsistencies between the affidavits of his mother and spouse and his other evidence concerning the alleged date of his father and brother's deaths. The Appellant's overall credibility is severely undermined by these inconsistencies. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the deaths of the Appellant's father and brother never, in fact, took place. [60] Fourth, I have reviewed the copy of the marriage certificate58 the Appellant disclosed to the RPD and I note the discrepancy between the title of the official translation of the certificate and the stamp as described by the RPD panel.59 When the Appellant was asked about this discrepancy, he was unable to explain it.60 [61] The Appellant was also questioned generally about his marriage and testified that he and his spouse married in Kismayo in XXXX 2014.61 When the RPD panel asked the Appellant why that testimony contradicted the marriage dates given in his original and amended BOC narratives, which state that he first met his spouse in June 2014,62 he responded that they first met in 2013 and were secretly engaged in February 2014.63 In my independent assessment, his answer is inadequate to explain why he gave a different marriage date in two different BOC narratives. [62] A little later, when the Minister's counsel also pointed out to the Appellant that the marriage certificate he disclosed to the RPD stated he was married in XXXX 2015, the Appellant suggested that the date on the certificate was the result of an error in translation.64 In my independent assessment, it is more likely that the marriage certificate was crafted to corroborate the marriage date given in the affidavit of the Appellant's spouse, given that both items were disclosed to the RPD September 15, 2016 in the same package of documents. [63] I draw a negative inference concerning the Appellant's credibility overall, given the various dates given for his marriage in his evidence. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was never married. [64] Fifth, the RPD accepted the decision of the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) in Norway that refused the Appellant's refugee claim, but placed no weight on the Norwegian documents themselves.65 [65] The RPD's decision remarks that the Appellant "continued to maintain lies in areas substantially material to his claim right until the first sitting of his Canadian claim in February 2018 when he acknowledged that he had sought protection in Norway".66 This is borne out by the transcript of the first sitting of the hearing,67 which shows that the Appellant withheld this information from his own counsel until the Minister proposed to examine him with reference to the Minister's correspondence with immigration authorities in Norway.68 [66] As well, my examination of the documents from the Appellant's Norwegian refugee claim show he alleged a risk of persecution to authorities in Norway based on facts entirely different from those he alleged before the RPD: The refugee interview was carried out on 05.02.2015. [The Norwegian refugee appeal tribunal] repeats the appellant's explanation of why he left his homeland on page 4 of the decision of 07.05.2015 as follows: The applicant feared to be killed by al-Shabaab on his return to Dadaab. The applicant grew up in Dadaab, after he fled with his family from Kismayo in 1991. Al-Shabaab killed the applicant's stepfather after the applicant left Dadaab. Representatives from al-Shabaab were critical of the applicant's work in the refugee camp, and when he did not follow their demand to quit, the applicant feared that Al-Shabaab would kill him if given the opportunity. The applicant furthermore explained that he cannot travel to Somalia because he does not know Somalia, and he has no house there.69 [67] While some elements presented in his RPD and RAD claim are present in the allegations he made to the Norwegian tribunal, the Appellant's amended BOC narrative of February 201870 does not mention he was targeted by Al-Shabaab in Dadaab camp for his work with the NRC [Norwegian Refugee Council] during the period of January 2010 to December 2010, and for another organization from January 2011 to 31 February 2014, as he alleged to Norway's UNE in his claim.71 [68] Moreover, given the numerous inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence about when his father and brother were allegedly killed, his marriage to his spouse, and when he was in Kismayo, there is simply no reliable or objective information against which I can test his testimony that the general allegations at the heart of his claim in Norway were "correct"72 - not least of all because some key elements of his claim before the RPD are nowhere to be found in the documents from his Norwegian refugee claim. [69] It is my independent assessment that the Appellant's failure to disclose his refugee claim in Norway to the RPD until the start of his oral hearing seriously undermines his overall credibility as a witness, as it indicates a willingness on his part to withhold material information from decision-makers even when that information is relevant to the proper adjudication of his claim. Moreover, the inconsistencies between the allegations behind that claim and the allegations of risk submitted to the RPD further undermine his credibility as a witness. I draw a negative credibility inference from these inconsistencies, which impact matters relevant to the heart of the Appellant's claim. [70] Sixth, the RPD gave little weight to the assessment report prepared by the Appellant's psychotherapist. It found the report's methodology was unclear and that the report failed to "set out to what extent the [Appellant's] own personal reporting of his experience" was "taken into account in the overall psychotherapeutic assessment and report."73 [71] Having examined the report, I do not agree with the RPD that the psychotherapist's clinical methodology is unclear. The "Approach to Assessment" section of the report does set out Ms. XXXX methodological approach in assessing her clients.74 Moreover, the assessment was based on an hour-long interview with the Appellant and Ms. XXXX does note that the information in the report was "provided by Mr. XXXX."75 [72] I have two further concerns: first, the RPD's Reasons for Decision fail to properly acknowledge the clinical opinion in the Appellant's psychotherapy assessment report, and its finding that symptoms Ms. XXXX observed in the Appellant were consistent with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.76 Instead, the RPD's Reasons characterize the report as "a medico-legal document produced for the purposes of supporting [his] refugee claim".77 [73] In my opinion, this is not a valid basis upon which to dismiss the report: the disclosure of psycho-social, psycho-therapeutic and psychiatric assessments to decision-makers in the RPD is common practice and the mere fact the Appellant did so in support of his own claim and by way of explaining challenges that he might face in testifying does not constitute an abuse of the Board's process. [74] My second concern arises from the RPD's decision to weigh the report based on what it refers to as "the [Appellant's conduct in relationship to the psychotherapist's recommendations". The RPD observed in its Reasons that while "[s]everal potential therapies [were] recommended to the [Appellant] to address symptoms he reported to the psychotherapist" he "had not followed those recommendations [as of] the date of the proceeding" and "testified that he looks after himself."78 [75] In my independent assessment, it was not open to the RPD to draw a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's failure to continue with the course of treatment suggested by the psychotherapist. [76] My review of the transcripts of both sittings of the hearing indicates the Appellant might not have been aware of the recommendation in the psychotherapist report that he undergo further counselling, as he did not respond directly to questions put to him by the Minister's counsel on that issue.79 [77] More importantly, however, the Appellant's ability to pursue the recommended treatment could have been affected by one or a combination of any number of factors extraneous to the issues at the heart of his claim. Absent clear evidence from the Appellant that he knew of the psychotherapist's recommendation that he seek further treatment and ignored it for reasons related to any of the credibility issues at the heart of his claim, I find it was not open to the RPD to draw a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's failure to seek further psychotherapeutic treatment, as this finding unfairly effectively imputed to him a rationale for failing to comply with the psychotherapist's recommendation for which there was simply no basis in the evidence. [78] That being said, however, I do agree with the RPD's decision to give the report "very little weight" for the specific purpose of supporting the "core allegations" in the Appellant's claim, given that the information in the "History Relevant to Assessment" section of the report80 is inconsistent with most of the other evidence the Appellant provided about material aspects of his claim, including (but not limited to): when he allegedly met his wife; when the two of them were secretly married; when his father and brother were allegedly murdered; and when he left Somalia. Critically, this section of the report does not mention the Appellant's time in Norway between XXXX 2014 and XXXX 2015. [79] In light of the foregoing, I find the Appellant failed to establish his personal identity or his identity as a national of Somalia with acceptable evidence, and in particular, that his testimony was altogether lacking in credibility, which undermined his overall credibility as a witness. In my opinion, the RPD did not err in refusing the Appellant's claim on the grounds of identity and credibility. [80] I therefore dismiss this appeal. CONCLUSION [81] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) S. Thompson S. Thompson 20 August 2020 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 4 at lines 43-48. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 110-112 at paras. 16-25, esp. p. 112 at para. 25. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 112 at paras. 26-32, esp at paras. 26, 32. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 113-115 at paras. 33-43. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 103-104. 6 Subsection 110(4), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza, 2007 FC 385. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 13 at para. 5. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 108 at para. 7. 10 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Rule 29 Application dated July 23, 2020, p. 4 at para. 4. 11 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Rule 29 Application dated July 23, 2020, p. 4 at para. 4. 12 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Rule 29 Application dated July 23, 2020, p. 3 at para. 2. 13 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 22-23, pp. 305-315. 15 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 112 at paras. 26, 28. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 112 at para. 30. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 112 at para. 31. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 23, p. 313. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 23, p. 313. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 5 at lines 20-21. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 5 at lines 5-14. 22 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, p. 43 at lines 38-46. 23 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, p. 43 at line 46. 24 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia, 31 March 2020, item. 1.1, United Nations. Cartographic Section, Decembr 2011. 25 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, p. 50 at lines 23-37. 26 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, p. 11 at lines 10-37. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 26, pp. 321-324. 28 NDP for Somalia, 31 March 2020, item. 13.5, Denmark. Danish Immigration Service, 2000, at p. 26 (Section 5.3.1 "Relationship with other group and clans"). 29 NDP for Somalia, 31 March 2020, item 13.9, Leiden University. African Studies Centre, 18 December 2009. 30 NDP for Somalia, 31 March 2020, item 13.10, Austrian Red Cross. Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation, December 2009, at p. 14 (Section 4 "Minorities"). 31 NDP for Somalia, 31 March 2020, item 14.3, Danish Demining Group, August 2017, at p. 11 ("Social Context"). 32 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Rule 29 Application dated July 23, 2020, p. 6. 33 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Rule 29 Application dated July 23, 2020, p. 5. 34 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Rule 29 Application dated July 23, 2020, p. 5. 35 Exhibit P-3, Appellant's Rule 29 Application dated July 23, 2020, p. 5. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 5 at lines 22-32. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 5 at lines 34-41. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 5 (line 50) to p. 6 (lines 5-13, 35-38 and 49-50) and p. 7 (line 5). 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 6 at lines 15-25. 40 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 44-52. 41 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 47 at para. 12. 42 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on February 23, 2018, pp. 43 (lines 36-51), 46 (lines 10-37). 43 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on February 23, 2018, pp. 49 (lines 15-41), 35 (lines 11-13). 44 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on February 23, 2018, p. 54 (lines 17-35). 45 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on February 23, 2018, pp. 49 (lines 43-50) to 50 (lines 5-28). 46 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on February 23, 2018, p. 51 (lines 39-42). 47 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 102 at para. 6. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 100 at para. 7. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pp. 11 at questions 2(e) and 2(f). 50 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 110 at lines 63-65. 51 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 21, p. 26 at questions 2(e) and 2(f). 52 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, pp. 25 (lines 32-50) to 26 (lines 5-14). 53 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, pp. 24 (lines 40-50) to 25 (lines 5-30). 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exibit 12, p. 184. 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 68. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 84. 57 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 38, question 11 ("Date and place of your last entry to Canada"). 58 Exhibit RPD1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 106-107. 59 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 5 at lines 34-36. 60 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, p. 24 (lines 15-23). 61 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, p. 17 (lines 31-45). 62 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, p.18 (lines 16-33) 63 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, p. 20 (lines 21-33). 64 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, pp. 21 (lines 43-51) to 22 (lines 6-12) 65 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 6 (line 35). 66 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 5 (line 50) to 6 (lines 5-6). 67 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on February 23, 2018, pp. 8 (lines 7-50) to 13 (lines 5-11), 15 (lines 18-51) to 17 (lines 6-30), 18 (lines 12-21) to 19 (lines 6-39). 68 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on February 23, 2018, p. 19 (lines 6-39). 69 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 27, p. 334. 70 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 21, pp. 29-32. 71 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 27, p. 336. 72 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on February 23, 2018, p. 28 (lines 39-42). 73 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 6 at lines 23-25. 74 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 124. 75 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 125 ("Behaviour and Presentation"). 76 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 126. 77 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 6 at lines 16-17. 78 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 6 at lines 17-20. 79 Transcript of hearing in RPD file number TB6-10218 on September 12, 2018, pp. 31 (lines 34-51) to 32 (lines 6-9). 80 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 125. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-10678 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 2 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français