TB4-08262

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 : TB4-08262 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision December 23, 2014 Date de la décision Panel C. Forbes Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Micheal Crane Barrister and Solicitor 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 and Decision [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), who claims to be a citizen of Somalia, has appealed a negative determination of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated August 26, 2014. She has submitted new evidence in support of her appeal. The Appellant is requesting an oral hearing but is not asking for a change of venue. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that she is a citizen of Somalia and a member of the minority Ajuran clan. Her father owned a farm growing XXXX XXXX XXXX outside of XXXX. Members of the Jubbaland government used to pay a high price for their produce. The Appellant and her family knew that Al Shabaab targets those who have any connection to the government. The Appellant's brother and mother delivered produce to the government camp one day in XXXX 2013. Al Shabaab informers found out that they were selling to the government and stopped their truck and killed both her mother and brother and took their truck. After they buried her mother and brother, her father decided they must flee the area. He sold the farm, and they travelled to Nairobi, Kenya where the Appellant found an agent who facilitated her travel to Canada. The Appellant's husband and family remain in Kenya. The Appellant fears returning to Somalia where she will face persecution and likely death, as her mother and brother had, at the hands of Al Shabaab, who suspect her family of being supporters of the government. She also fears larger clans due to her profile as a member of the minority Ajuran clan and as an accompanied female. [4] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing which spanned three sittings (November 4, 2013, February 12, 2014 and April 2, 2014) and written Reasons were issued on August 26, 2014. [5] The Minister did not participate in this hearing or the appeal. Admissibility of Evidence Submitted on Appeal [6] As provided for in s. 110(3) of IRPA, with certain exceptions, the RAD must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and the person subject to the appeal. Section 110(4) of 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. [7] It is for the Appellant to make full and detailed submissions in his Memorandum about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of Section 110(4) and how that evidence relates to the Appellant.1 The merits of accepting this evidence are addressed by the Appellant in the Memorandum as follows. [8] The Appellant provided an affidavit of XXXX XXXX, dated September 15, 2014. The Appellant submits that a separate affidavit from the elder, referred to in the letter from Mr. XXXX, was necessary. This appears to be a format used by the community centre, as counsel referred to in the submissions (discussed at paragraph 20 of the RPD's reasons). The Appellant submits that the affidavit could have been filed at the RPD but it was not reasonably foreseeable that it should be filed. [9] The Appellant also provided an affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated September 17, 2014. The Appellant submits this affidavit is relevant but was not foreseeable that the RPD would take the view that the Ajuran are a sub-clan to the Hawiye without any qualification. It appears that some of the Ajuran dispute the relationship. There is controversy regarding this. The Appellant submits that the affidavit corroborates that the view of the Appellant is not an outlier. [10] The Appellant submits the Immigration and Refugee Board's Response to Information Request (RIR) of the current situation of the Ajuran clan [SOM17470.E]. The Appellant submits the document could have been filed earlier but for the same reason, was not reasonably foreseeable. The RIR confirms that there is controversy as to the relationship between the Arujan and the Hawiye. The RIR states that the Ajuran are unique. The RAD searched the National Documentation Package (NDP) and could not locate this document in either the current or archived documentation. The RAD notes the references included in the content of the document is dated 1982, 1983, 1993 and 1994. The RAD finds that this dated document cannot be considered as information regarding the current situation of the Ajuran clan. Given the date of the document and the Appellant's allegations in her Basis of Claim (BoC) that she fears persecution in Somalia because she is a member of the minority Ajuran clan, the RAD finds the Appellant's explanation that the affidavit could have been filed at the RPD but it was not foreseeable is not reasonable. The Appellant could have provided the document at the time of rejection. As such, this document is not new evidence. [11] The RAD considered the Appellant's evidence noted above. The Appellant was aware of her responsibility to provide evidence in support of her claim. Her BoC narrative indicated that she was of the Arujan clan. The Appellant had the opportunity to obtain the affidavits before the hearing. The RAD rejects the Appellant's explanation that the affidavits and RIR could have been filed at the RPD, but it was not reasonably foreseeable that they should be filed. [12] The Appellant was represented by counsel and did provide other evidence in support of her claim. Further, the affidavits and RIR cannot be submitted in order to explain away deficiencies in evidence provided previously to the RPD. [13] As such, the RAD finds that the Appellant's explanation that the affidavits corroborated her clan affiliation was not foreseeable is not reasonable, and therefore the documents fail to meet the test in s. 110(4). [14] Lastly, the Appellant submits a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX). The Appellant submits that this letter involves post-rejection evidence and confirms that the Appellant continues to receive counselling. [15] The RAD considered the letter from the XXXX2 dated October 1, 2014 attesting that the Appellant has been receiving settlement and trauma counselling at the XXXX and has been continuing with her endeavour to cope with the torture she suffered in her country. The RAD notes that the letter was produced after the Reasons were issued on August 26, 2014. The pleadings3 provide the explanation that this letter involves post-rejection evidence and confirms that the Appellant continues to receive counselling. [16] The RAD noted that the XXXX letter solely indicates that the Appellant received counselling. This letter does not provide any new information, given that the Appellant provided the identical letter from XXXX, although dated January 21, 2014,4 in support of her claim at the time of the hearing. The letter also does not provide any detail regarding the Appellant's mental health other than indicating that the Appellant has been provided with assistance to deal with her settlement and trauma. The RAD finds this letter provides information that the Appellant has been provided with assistance to deal with her settlement and trauma, which was previously before the RPD. [17] As such, the RAD finds that the XXXX evidence is not new, as it duplicates evidence already before the RPD, and it is not relevant to the determinative issues in the appeal. [18] For the reasons identified above, the RAD did not accept the four documents presented as new evidence. [19] The Appellant requested an oral hearing. The RAD notes that s. 110(6) of IRPA indicates that a hearing can be held only on evidence that is admitted under s. 110(4). Given that the affidavits and the letter from the XXXX were found not to be new evidence, the RAD finds that the Appellant's application for an oral hearing cannot be sustained, as it is outside the jurisdiction given to the RAD to hold a hearing. ROLE OF THE RAD [20] Counsel for the Appellant argued that the RAD should follow the Federal Court Decision in Huruglica5 and submits the RAD owed little deference to the RPD if there is new evidence. The Appellant further submits RAD is a de novo proceeding given its mandate and the power of substitution. [21] The RAD finds that the recent Federal Court decision, in Huruglica,6 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by the RAD to decisions of the RPD. Justice Phelan states in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the foregoing decision: [54] Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision.7 [55] In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an "overriding and palpable error".8 [22] While there has been some conflict in the case law from the Federal Court regarding the standard of review to be applied by the RAD when reviewing RPD decisions, Justice Martineau, in Alyafi,9 has said that, in the face of this conflict, the Federal Court should allow the RAD to apply either approach as long as the question of the scope of the appellate review of the RPD's decisions has not been settled by a final judgment by the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. [23] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Deference will be afforded to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [24] The RAD focused on the following determinative issue in assessing this appeal: Is the Appellant a citizen of Somalia? Psychological Report [25] The Appellant submits that "the evidence of the witness is unreasonably dealt with by the RPD because it is submitted that the RPD was unreasonable vis-à-vis the psychological evidence. The RPD rejected credibility and then discusses whether the psychological report rebuts its prior findings." The Appellant relies on the Federal Court's decision10 to support this argument. The RPD, in assessing the Appellant's credibility, had reference to the psychological assessment letter of Dr. XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2013.11 The RPD was not satisfied that on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant provided the same information to Dr. XXXX as she did at the hearing, which serves at once to diminish the weight which may be assigned to the report and to further undermine the claimant's credibility. [26] The RAD has reviewed the audio recording and the record and finds that information of significant importance in Dr. XXXX's report does not agree with that provided by the Appellant in her BoC or at the hearing. The RAD concurs with the following examples provided by the RPD: while Dr. XXXX indicates that the claimant "fled her homeland in XXXX of this year",12 the claimant indicates in her IMM0008 and in her testimony that she fled Somalia in XXXX 2013 and went to Kenya, and that she left Kenya in XXXX." The RAD notes that, while the Appellant's IMM0008 form states she left Kenya in XXXX, the IMM0008 (page 3 of 6) also indicates that she resided in Kenya until XXXX XXXX, 2013. The RPD further states that "the doctor's letter also mentions that the claimant's husband, father and sisters fled to Kenya, but does not mention that the Appellant went there with them." [27] The RAD has considered the report of Dr. XXXX.13 Dr. XXXX concludes that the Appellant "meets the diagnostic criteria for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(XXXX XXXX XXXX)". The record reflects that the Appellant was referred to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and that, although the loss of her mother and brother will act as prolonged sources of anguish in her life, ...she perceived a great sense of safety in this country, and as a result of this protective element, there is every indication that over time, she will gradually heal from the trauma-related aspects of her condition. [28] The RAD finds that the psychological opinion contained in Dr. XXXX's report was based on the Appellant's self-report. The accuracy of Dr. XXXX's medical opinion is highly dependent on the credibility of the Appellant's account. There is no evidence in the report that questioned the accuracy of her accounts. [29] Accordingly, based upon the concerns identified, the RAD affords little weight to the report of Dr. XXXX in establishing the Appellant's personal identity and nationality. Overall Identity Finding [30] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to provide credible and trustworthy evidence to establish her personal identity, or her identity as a national of Somalia from the Ajuran clan, on a balance of probabilities. Evidence of Somali Citizenship [31] The Appellant based her claim of being a citizen of Somalia on her oral testimony, a birth certificate, a letter from her father, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and a confirmation letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(and subsequent letter), a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX and testimony of the witness. Birth Certificate [32] The Appellant argues that the RPD's finding that her evidence regarding her birth certificate is not credible does not mean that the birth certificate is false. [33] The Appellant provided a birth certificate in both Somali and English dated at XXXX on XXXX XXXX 1989.14 The Appellant put forth evidence that she had requested and received the birth certificate on XXXX XXXX, 2013. The Appellant stated that she had her Somali birth certificate translated into English in Canada because her counsel did not understand Somali. She confirmed the translation was done by a man she was referred to in Toronto. The RPD noted in its reasons that there was no indication that the English document was a translation, neither was there an attestation by a translator. The Appellant's explanation was "he didn't put one." [34] The RPD noted in its reasons that: ... the English copy of the birth certificate document does not present as a translation into English of the Somali certificate, but rather as an English version of the same certificate, as it is on a pre-printed form from the Municipality of XXXX, and is issued on letterhead bearing the same crest as the Somali version. The panel finds that even a cursory examination shows that the English document provided is therefore not just translation of the Somali certificate made by a translator here, and concludes that the claimant's evidence was not credible in this regard.15 [35] The Appellant argues the RPD erred in finding that the birth certificate could be impugned because the Appellant gave contradictory evidence as to when the document was requested and where it was translated. The RAD finds the RPD was not wrong in its finding as the Federal Court has stated: It was open to the RPD to find that the way in which the passport was obtained raised doubts about its authenticity because of the contradictions and omissions in the applicant's testimony, particularly in light of documentary evidence listing the documents required to obtain a passport.16 [36] Based on the totality of the evidence regarding the birth certificate proffered by the Appellant as evidence of her Somali citizenship, the RAD concurs with the RPD's finding that "the claimant's evidence as to how the English version of the document came to be produced and obtained is not credible." The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant cannot rely upon the birth certificate document as proof of her identity. Letter from Father and Confirmation Letter [37] The Appellant argues that the RAD ought to consider the affidavit of the Appellant's father. A member of the Bar confirmed that the contents were correct and the affiant understood the contents. [38] The Appellant provided a document entitled "Affidavit" that indicates it was made by her father, XXXX XXXX XXXX, in XXXX, Kenya on XXXX XXXX, 2013, and that it was notarized by XXXX XXXX XXXX, an advocate and notary public there. In this document, written in English, the Appellant's father states that he belongs to the Ajuran clan, that he is the father of the Appellant, and that she too belongs to that clan. The document indicates that he took his family to Kenya when he lost his wife and son as well as his properties and wealth to Al Shabaab and that his daughter had come to Toronto from XXXX for the purpose of "seeking sanctuary from persecutions and violence based on her clan identity and gender."17 [39] The Appellant testified that her father did not speak English. Her explanation, when asked how he was able to write the affidavit in English, was that there had been a translator who spoke English with him when the document was produced. The RPD noted in its reasons that there was no indication that there had been a translator involved in producing the document. The RPD received further disclosure subsequent to the sitting on March 21, 2013, which included an undated letter indicating that it was from XXXX XXXX XXXX, referring to the affidavit. In this document, the author indicates that he is an advocate of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, that he is conversant in English, Somali, and he states that the content of the affidavit is "the correct interpretation of the information given to me by the deponent in Somali language when he appeared before me on XXXX XXXX, 2013".18 [40] The RPD noted in its reasons that the letter is not a sworn document or affidavit, nor does it state that its author interpreted the contents of the affidavit to XXXX XXXX XXXX in Somali prior to his signing the document. Further, the RPD noted that no identification documents with respect to either person were provided, nor did the letter make clear by what means the author identified the affiant. In light of these issues, the RAD concurs with the RPD's finding that they could not reasonably assign weight to the affidavit and that this document did not assist the Appellant in meeting her onus to establish her personal, national or clan identity, on a balance of probabilities. [41] The Appellant submits the RPD was unreasonable in its interpretation of the letter from the Somali embassy. [42] The Appellant provided to the RPD a "confirmation letter" dated XXXX XXXX, 2013 in English, signed by a person named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who indicates that he is the XXXX XXXX in Nairobi, Kenya. The author of the letter states that XXXX XXXX XXXXis a "Somali National Living in Kenya as a Refugee", that he fled to Kenya in XXXX 2003 with his daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that Mr. XXXX is "recognized by the Somali Embassy and the Kenyan government as a bonfied [sic] Somali refugee."19 The RAD notes the information in this confirmation letter is in contradiction with the Appellant's own evidence that she and her family had not gone to the authorities once they reached Kenya to seek protection there. Her explanation for not doing so was that it was generally known that, if you went to the authorities there, they would deport you back to Somalia. [43] The RPD referred to and the RAD confirmed the documents in the NDP20 that indicates there were over 500,000 Somali refugees registered in Kenya as of August 2011. The RAD notes the Appellant's explanation for the contradictions was that, although some Somalis had legal papers and had been in Kenya for a while, she and her family had just arrived and were afraid they would be sent back. In response to further questions posed to her by the RPD regarding why the letter from the Somali embassy indicated that her father was recognized by the embassy and the Kenyan government as a bona fide refugee, she provided inconsistent testimony: that she spoke with her father on XXXX XXXX, 2013, and he had told her that the refugee place was bombed and that those who were there before were in trouble now, and that their lives were in danger. The Appellant also confirmed that her family had not gone to the authorities, as they feared being taken back. The Appellant offered the explanation of why the letter from the embassy indicated that her father was recognized by the embassy and the Kenyan government as a refugee, that the Somali embassy was in Kenya but was not the Kenyan government. The RAD notes that the letter mentions the Kenyan government separately and that her father was recognized by them as a bona fide Somali refugee. The Appellant's further explanation was that her father had told her that the embassy knew they were there, but the Kenyan Government did not. The RAD finds these explanations proffered by the Appellant in this matter are not credible. Furthermore, the Appellant stated that her conversation with her father advising that the refugee place had been bombed was on XXXX XXXX, 2013, prior to the issuance of the letter on XXXX XXXX, 2013 from the Somali embassy recognizing her father as a bona fide refugee by the Kenyan government. [44] The Appellant submitted a subsequent letter dated March 14, 201421 indicating that it was from the same person at the Somali embassy in Nairobi, the purpose of which appears to be to correct the perceived mistake in the first letter proffered by the Appellant. This letter states that XXXX XXXX XXXX was a refugee outside of his country because of fear, but he does not have recognition from the UNHCR as he has never registered with them. The RPD placed no weight on either letter, whether as evidence in support of the Appellant's identity (and/or that of her father) or as evidence in support of any facts in this case. [45] The RAD concurs with the RPD placing no weight on these documents based upon the following facts: neither document is in the form of a sworn affidavit or declaration. No copy of any identification was provided attesting to the author's identity or confirming his accreditation as the Somali ambassador in Kenya. The RPD found that it could place no reliance on the information contained in the letters, given that they do not detail how the author knows the Appellant's father or was able to identify him, or how he is aware of any of the information with respect to the Appellant's father, or the claimant that was included in the letters. In addition, the first letter states that the Appellant's father fled with the Appellant to Kenya in XXXX 2003, approximately XXXX XXXX before the Appellant states that they fled. In addition, while the letter states that the Appellant fled with her father, it makes no mention that her younger sisters or her husband fled with them, as the Appellant has asserted. The RAD finds, for all of these reasons, the letters did not assist the Appellant in meeting her onus to establish her personal, national or clan identity. Clan Affiliation [46] The Appellant submits the RPD took the view that the Arujan are a sub-clan to the Hawiye without qualification. [47] The RAD considered the evidence related to the Appellant's clan affiliation. The RAD noted that the documentary evidence indicates that Somali society is one that is divided into clans and sub-clans, and political affiliation is based on clan lines.22 The Appellant alleges that she feared returning to Somalia because of her status as a minority member of the Ajuran clan. [48] The RPD had before it evidence from the XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated October 30, 2013, that provided a historical description of the Ajuran clan and how it differs from the Hawiye clan. A further letter dated March 25, 201423 attests that the Appellant "is a person of Somali origin who hails from Ajuran clan and who was born and raised in XXXX, Somalia". The letter states that prominent members of the community confirmed that the Appellant is a citizen of Somalia and who "some of them knew in XXXX, Somalia." The Appellant speaks "fluent in Somali, has some recollections of places, monuments, as well as some geographical locations in XXXX, Somalia." [49] The RAD notes the Appellant's evidence was that she had told individuals at the community centre that she was from XXXX, that she was a member of the minority Ajuran clan and that they have no protection. The Appellant was asked by both the RPD and counsel questions concerning the area where she allegedly resided in Somalia. The Appellant was able to provide limited, basic details about XXXX. However, she could not provide more specific information: such as the name of the hospital or any monuments in XXXX, how far the single town she named was from XXXX in either travel time or distance, neither was she able to name any other towns nearby. [50] The RAD finds the Appellant's inability to provide information that she would be expected to know considering her evidence that she had resided in XXXX supports the RPD's finding that providing a limited number of basic details about the town of XXXX to the XXXX XXXX XXXX or at the hearing did not constitute clear, cogent and convincing evidence to establish her personal, national or clan identity, on a balance of probabilities. The RAD finds the letter does not confirm the Appellant's personal identity or nationality; rather, it indicates the Appellant is a member of the Ajuran clan. Even if this were true, the Appellant could reasonably be a member of the clan and not be a citizen of Somalia. Given the above concerns, the RAD finds that the above noted letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX has little probative value in supporting the Appellant's personal identity, nationality, and her clan. Witness Testimony [51] The Appellant brought an identity witness to the hearing by the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX). The RPD did not find the testimony of the Appellant's witness established that she and the Appellant had known each other in Somalia until 2007 as claimed, and it thus found that it did not assist the Appellant in establishing her personal, national or clan identity. [52] The RAD reviewed the recording as well as the Reasons and Decision. The RAD finds the RPD based its negative credibility finding related to the witness on inconsistencies between his testimony and the Appellant's, on significant details of their acquaintance such as: the Appellant's father told her he had known the witness since 1982; the witness claimed that he had been a friend of her father since the 1970s. The witness was unable to provide consistent or accurate information as to when he had first met the Appellant, at first indicating it was in 1980 or 1978, later stating that he recalled seeing her and her brother in the 1980s when they were children. The RAD notes that the Appellant alleges she was born in 1989. The witness testified that he recalled that, when he left XXXX in 2007, the Appellant's father had two children; whereas, in fact, he had three. The witness also testified that the Appellant's family were "in peace now" in Kenya, in contrast to the Appellant's testimony that her father had told her that their lives were in danger in Kenya and that they were living in fear. [53] Based on the totality of the inconsistencies and inaccurate information provided by the witness and the Appellant, the RAD finds the witness's testimony that he and the Appellant had known each other in Somalia until he left in 2007 is not credible. Therefore, the RAD concurs with the RPD's finding that the witness's testimony did not assist the Appellant in establishing her personal, national or clan identity. [54] The RAD found that these inconsistencies between the Appellant and her witness were significant as they related to the basis of the witness's relationship with the Appellant. The RPD asked questions and compared their responses. The inconsistencies were not minor, and they were sufficient to undermine the credibility of the witness. As such, the RAD concurs with the RPD's finding that the witness was not credible, as the finding was based on inconsistencies in evidence regarding the relationship between the Appellant and the witness. Given that the Appellant relied heavily on the testimony of the witness to establish her identity and nationality and given that the witness has been found not to be credible, the RAD concurs with the RPD's finding that the Appellant has failed to provide credible and trustworthy evidence to establish her personal identity, or her identity as a national of Somalia from the Ajuran clan, on a balance of probabilities. Summary [55] The RAD finds that the RPD considered the totality of the evidence before it and found that the Appellant failed to provide credible and trustworthy evidence to establish her personal identity, or her identity as a national of Somalia from the Ajuran clan, on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant and her witness were found not to be credible. [56] The RAD considered that the Appellant testified 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 and given that this language can be spoken in Somali, Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia. [57] The jurisprudence sets out that, where identity is not established, it is unnecessary to further analyze the evidence and the claim.24 [58] In this particular case, given that the Appellant was found not to be a credible witness, the RAD finds that the RPD's Reasons and Decision could have benefited by a more strict application of the provision in s. 107, namely, a finding of no credible basis or a finding that the claim was manifestly unfounded. DISPOSITION [59] Based on a review of the totality of the evidence, the RAD confirms the RPD's determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is she a person in need of protection, as per s. 111(1)(a) of IRPA. [60] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "C. Forbes" C. Forbes December 23, 2014 Date 1 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, Section 3(3)(g)(iii). 2 Appellant's Record, Letter from XXXX XXXX, October 10, 2014, p. 32. 3 Appellant's Record, p. 34. 4 RPD's Record, at p. 108. 5 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., Huruglica, para 54. 8 Ibid., Huruglica, para 55. 9 Alyafi, Aghiad v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1091-14), Martineau, October 8, 2014; 2014 FC 952. 10 Rudaragi, Gerard v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4169-05), O'Reilly, July 25, 2006; 2006 FC 911. 11 RPD's Record, pp. 102-105. 12 RPD's Record, p. 102. 13 RPD's Record, at pp. 102-105. 14 RPD's Record, at p. 72. 15 RPD's Record, Reasons and Decision, para. 14. 16 Hernandez Cardozo, Eduardo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5095-11), Shore, February 9, 2012, 2012 FC 190. 17 RPD's Record, pp. 67. 18 RPD's Record, p. 147. 19 RPD's Record, p. 69. 20 RPD's Record, Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia (3 May 2013), Item 2.3, U.K. Home Office, Somalia: Country of Origin Information (COI) Report, 17 January 2012, at para. 28.06. 21 RPD's Record, at p. 148. 22 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (3 May 2013), Items 3.2, 13.5, 13.9, and Items 1.7 and 2.3. 23 RPD's Record, at pp. 81 and 154. 24 Li, Lina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2342-05), Phelan, March 7, 2006; 2006 FC 296, [2006] F.C.J. No. 369 (QL), at para. 8. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-08262