TB8-17370

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-17370 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 27, 2020 Date de la décision Panel M. Oh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Cemone Morlese 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] XXXX XXXX XXXX ("the Appellant") claims to be a citizen of Somalia who fears persecution from Al-Shabaab in that country. The Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") rejected the Appellant's claim, as it found that he had not established his identity on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant disputes this determination, arguing that the RPD breached its duty of procedural fairness and that it erred in its assessment of his evidence. [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"), the appeal is dismissed. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant has not established his identity on a balance of probabilities. The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") therefore confirms the RPD's negative determination. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant describes that his parents were both Somali nationals, but that they fled from Somalia to Ethiopia, where he was born in 1974. After the Appellant's father was killed in 1977 by the Ethiopian military, the Appellant and his family moved to Somalia. They lived there until the civil war in 1991. That year, the Appellant and his family fled to Kenya. They returned to Somalia temporarily in 1995, but due to the conditions in Somalia they returned to Kenya the same year and settled in the Dadaab refugee camp until 2003. Due to persecution from another clan there, the Appellant went to live in Nairobi for a short period and later made his way to South Africa, where he registered as a refugee in 2006. Due to attacks and threats from South Africans, the Appellant left South Africa in 2012 using a fraudulent Somali passport. He used the passport to go to Brazil, and then journeyed towards the United States of America ("U.S." or "United States"), where he made an asylum claim in March 2013. The Appellant withdrew his asylum claim and made a refugee claim in Canada in 2016. [4] The RPD heard the Appellant's refugee claim on June 13, 2018 and rejected it by decision dated July 10, 2018. The RPD determined that the Appellant had failed to establish his identity. The RPD noted a number of discrepancies in his evidence, and also faulted him for his lack of effort in obtaining corroborative evidence about his identity and residence history. The RPD assigned little to no weight to the Appellant's support letters, and also assigned little weight to his evidence about his identity witness. As the Appellant's identity had not been established, the claim was rejected. Role of the Refugee Appeal Division [5] The jurisprudence establishes that the RAD is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination. Deference is owed to the RPD only where the RPD held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence.1 [6] In the present case, I see no reason to show deference to any of the RPD's findings. I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at independent findings based on the evidence before me. ANALYSIS [7] The Appellant argues the following on appeal: a) That the RPD breached its duty of procedural fairness; b) That the RPD made erroneous credibility findings; c) That the RPD failed to consider the totality of the Appellant's evidence about his identity; d) That the RPD erroneously considered the issue of the lack of corroborating documents and relied on speculation; and e) That the RPD incorrectly considered Somalia's citizenship law. [8] These arguments will be addressed in detail below. a) Whether the RPD breached its duty of procedural fairness [9] The Appellant argues that the RPD breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to examine his identity witness during his hearing. I do not agree with this argument. [10] The Appellant brought an identity witness to his hearing, whom he claimed was his maternal cousin. The witness, however, did not testify. Still, the RPD wrote in its reasons that the identity witness gave testimony, and the panel explained why the witness' testimony carried little weight. The RPD noted that the witness last saw the Appellant in Somalia in 1991, and that she would not able to reliably testify about whether he had since acquired citizenship elsewhere. The RPD also found it unusual that despite being in regular contact with his witness since they fled Somalia together in 1991, he only proposed to call her as a witness just nine days prior to his hearing date, and not even prior to his previously scheduled hearing date. [11] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred when it stated that the witness did in fact testify. Moreover, the Appellant claims that a breach of procedural fairness arises because the RPD failed to give him a fair chance to present his witness, who would have been able to provide highly probative testimony about the Appellant's residence in Somalia. The Appellant says that the RPD also should not have drawn negative credibility findings about the witness, without giving that witness the opportunity to testify. [12] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred, however I do not find that any breach of procedural fairness occurred. I have reviewed the hearing record and confirm that the identity witness was not called to testify. Accordingly, the RPD was incorrect to say that the witness gave testimony. I also do not agree with the RPD's reasons for doubting the witness' reliability. However, contrary to what the Appellant argues, the RPD did not deprive the Appellant of his opportunity to present his witness. For whatever reason, the Appellant simply chose not to bring in the witness to give evidence. The following exchange took place in the hearing: MEMBER: So, do you have questions for the witness, counsel? Because I don't. Do you have questions for her? It's up to you whether you want to call her. [Emphasis added] COUNSEL: I understand. No, I don't think so. MEMBER: Sorry? COUNSEL: No, no questions. MEMBER: Okay.2 [13] As reflected above, the Appellant had the chance to call his witness to testify, but chose not to take it. The RPD left the choice up to him, and did not deprive him of any such opportunity. It is not the RPD's role to make the Appellant's case for him. The onus rested with the Appellant to establish his identity and to produce the necessary evidence. The mere fact that the RPD did not have any questions for the witness did not mean that the RPD had accepted the Appellant's identity. To the contrary, the RPD immediately went on to question the Appellant further about his identity. As the reasons reflect, the RPD simply did not think that the witness would be able to provide sufficiently probative testimony about the Appellant's nationality, given that she last saw him in 1991. Whether one agrees with this reasoning or not, the Appellant had the option of bringing his witness into the hearing room to testify about how the witness had personal knowledge of the Appellant's identity and nationality. No breach of procedural fairness arises under these circumstances. [14] Although the RPD clearly erred by stating that the witness testified during the hearing, the outcome remains the same. Ultimately, the RPD had no affidavit from the identity witness nor any testimonial evidence from her to consider. The witness did not testify, and as such, there is no evidence from her upon which to place any weight. b) Whether the RPD made erroneous credibility findings [15] The RPD identified a number of problems in the Appellant's evidence and drew negative credibility inferences as a result. The Appellant challenges some of these findings, but I reach the same overall conclusion about the Appellant's credibility as the RPD. The RPD's findings [16] The RPD made numerous credibility findings, some having to do with discrepancies in the Appellant's oral testimony and other evidence, and some having to do with his lack of effort in providing corroborating evidence. The issue of corroboration will be dealt with further below. With respect to the problems in the evidence that was actually presented, among other issues, the RPD found the following: * That the Appellant was unable to identify the name of the neighbourhood he resided in when he was last in Somalia at the age of twenty-one. The Appellant explained that he did not know the neighbourhood's name because he lived there in 1995. The RPD found it reasonable to expect that he would still recall the name of the neighbourhood. * That the Appellant gave inconsistent evidence about the whereabouts of his family members. While he indicated in his Basis of Claim ("BOC") form that his mother and three siblings reside in Dadaab, Kenya, during the hearing he testified that he does not know where they are. He stated that he last saw them in the Dadaab refugee camp fifteen years ago. He stated that he believed the BOC form was asking where his family members were when he last saw them. The RPD rejected this explanation, given that he had listed his daughter's whereabouts as "unknown" despite having also last seen her in Dadaab fifteen years prior. * That the Appellant gave inconsistent statements to immigration officials in the United States. Interview notes indicate that the Appellant first told officials that his father was Ethiopian, but when later confronted about it in another interview, the Appellant denied saying this and then indicated that he was not sure. When confronted by the RPD about this, the Appellant explained that the interpreter used during the interview was on the phone, and that he told them that his parents are both Somali. The RPD considered that this, along with the Appellant's lack of efforts to corroborate his identity and previous residence, cast doubt on the Appellant's Somali citizenship. * That the Appellant gave inconsistent statements about his previous travel. While he testified that he had traveled through Tanzania, Malawi, and Mozambique on his way to South Africa, the RPD noted that in his interview in the United States, he denied having ever gone to Mozambique. The Appellant's arguments [17] The Appellant disputes the latter three findings. On the whereabouts of his family members, the Appellant admits that there is clearly a discrepancy between his testimony and his BOC form, but that this was not material. He argues that his testimony and BOC narrative were consistent in that he stated that he had not seen his family in over a decade. He says that his explanation, that he last saw them in Dadaab, is a reasonable explanation that should have been accepted. With respect to the U.S. immigration notes, the Appellant says that he was consistent in his answers that he was only born in Ethiopia. He claims that he never asserted that he was an Ethiopian citizen. Finally, on the issue of his travel to Mozambique, the Appellant says that the RPD was wrong to draw a negative inference from the interview notes. According to the Appellant, the question posed to him in the interview had to do with whether he had been to Mozambique in order to get a visa. The RAD's independent assessment [18] I largely agree with the RPD's findings. [19] The Appellant has not addressed the RPD's finding with respect to his residence in Somalia in 1995, when he supposedly returned from Kenya. At the time, the Appellant would have been twenty-one years old. I agree with the RPD that at such an age, the Appellant can reasonably be expected to recall the area in which he lived in Dhobley. Though I recognize that a significant amount of time has passed since the Appellant's residence in Somalia, I consider that this information would not be easily forgotten. This would have been the Appellant's most recent period of residence in Somalia. It is telling that he could not even identify where in Dhobley he lived. [20] With respect to the inconsistency regarding the family's whereabouts, I see no error in the RPD's finding. Contrary to the Appellant's argument, the discrepancy is material. At no point in the BOC form or narrative did the Appellant indicate that he had lost contact with his mother and siblings. The narrative only indicates that he lost contact with his ex-wife and daughter and accordingly, the form states that his daughter's location is "unknown".3 By contrast, the BOC form indicates that the Appellant's mother, sister, and two brothers live in Dadaab.4 The narrative does not state that the Appellant lost contact with his mother and siblings, but merely says that they remained in Dadaab after he left Kenya.5 I agree with the RPD that if in fact the Appellant no longer knew his mother and siblings' whereabouts, he would likely have listed them as "unknown" as he did with his daughter, whom he supposedly also last saw in Dadaab prior to his departure from Kenya. The discrepancy is material because the Appellant's lack of contact with his family was asserted as his explanation for the lack of corroborating identity documents. He testified that his mother had a Somali identity document, issued from a municipality. He could not access this document because he had supposedly lost contact with her. He also did not know if he was born in a hospital in Ethiopia, because he had never asked his mother about this and had no means to contact her. Given the lack of credibility in the Appellant's explanation, the RPD was correct to doubt why he was not in possession of any corroborative evidence from his immediate family. [21] I also agree with the RPD's finding with respect to the Appellant's statements in interviews with U.S. immigration officials. While the copy of the interview notes that were provided by the Appellant indicate that he denied stating that his father was Ethiopian, his answers in the interview were less than clear. At times, he stated that he was only born in Ethiopia but that he is Somali. At others, he was somewhat equivocal. When asked whether he has Somali citizenship, the Appellant answered yes, but confusingly stated that when he was in Somalia, he did not have it.6 When the Appellant was asked for confirmation as to whether he is both a Somali and Ethiopian national, the Appellant stated that he did not have any documents to show that he was legally in Ethiopia.7 At another point, when asked to confirm that his father was never an Ethiopian citizen, the Appellant stated that he did not know because Ethiopians killed his father in 1977 in the war.8 When officials confronted the Appellant about having stated in an earlier interview that his father was Ethiopian, the Appellant denied having said this. Then he stated that he was not sure if he had said that. He went on to explain that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had interviewed him in Panama, and that he told them that he was born in Ethiopia and that they must have assumed that he was an Ethiopian citizen. The Appellant went on to say that he was unaware of the difference between citizenship and nationality.9 Now the Appellant also places blame on the interpretation that was conducted over the phone. [22] Like the RPD, I am unpersuaded by the Appellant's explanations. I find it unlikely that U.S. authorities working with migrants in Panama would reach the conclusion that the Appellant is an Ethiopian citizen purely on the basis of his birth in that country. It is not credible that this one piece of information would then lead the Appellant to be consistently identified as an Ethiopian national in the Panama interview and then also upon his apprehension by the Department of Homeland Security at San Ysidro, California in March 2013.10 The Appellant's equivocal answers in the interview also cast doubt on his nationality. The RPD was correct to cite this information as a source of concern with respect to the Appellant's nationality. [23] I can only agree that the RPD erred in one of its findings, which relates to the Appellant's presence in Mozambique. The Appellant was indeed questioned about Mozambique during his U.S. interview. However, the questions with respect to Mozambique had to do with the Appellant's application for a visa to Brazil. The interviewer was clearly asking the Appellant whether he was physically in Mozambique in order to obtain the Brazilian visa, or whether someone had gotten it for him instead. To this, the Appellant answered that he did not go to Mozambique, but that his Oromo friend went there for him. The application for the Brazilian visa occurred years after the Appellant journeyed to South Africa from Kenya. The statements in the U.S. interview do not raise credibility issues with respect to the Appellant's travel to South Africa. Despite the RPD's error, however, the RPD had good reason to doubt the Appellant's credibility with respect to his identity, including his nationality. c) Whether the RPD failed to consider the totality of the Appellant's evidence about his identity [24] The Appellant also argues that the RPD failed to consider the totality of the evidence around his identity. For the reasons that follow, I am unpersuaded that the RPD was wrong in its assessment of the evidence. [25] In support of his personal and national identity, the Appellant relied on his own oral testimony as well as three pieces of documentary evidence: 1) A letter from Midaynta Community Services in Toronto11; 2) A letter from the Somali Association of South Africa ("SASA")12; and 3) A letter from the Somali Community Center in Lexington, Nebraska13. The RPD's findings [26] The RPD addressed each of the above documents as well as the Appellant's oral testimony. The RPD did not seem to doubt the Appellant's Somali ethnicity. For instance, the RPD acknowledged that the Appellant speaks the Somali language fluently. But the Somali language is spoken in a number of other countries that have significant populations of ethnic Somalis, such as Ethiopia and Kenya. The fact of the Appellant's Somali ethnicity was not determinative with respect to his nationality, nor could it establish his personal identity. [27] Therefore, when assessing the letter from Midaynta Community Services, the RPD did not place significant weight on the Appellant's ability to speak fluent Somali. There were also some deficiencies in the letter, as it did not contain information about what questions were asked that had satisfied the author about the Appellant's knowledge of the geography of the Qoryole area in Somalia. There was nothing to indicate how the organization had verified the relationship between the Appellant and his witness, whom the organization apparently also interviewed. Without knowing more about the specific questions asked, the RPD had no way of assessing the level of difficulty of the verification questions. The RPD could not be satisfied that a rigorous verification process had been followed. It might have been possible for the Appellant to pass the verification process after searching for and memorizing certain basic facts about Somalia. [28] The RPD also found that the SASA letter was not reliable. The issuing office is located in Pretoria, where the Appellant had never lived. When asked how the organization would know anything about him, the Appellant explained that he would go to Pretoria to visit relatives and buy merchandise, and that his friends and others told the organization about him. As a result of the letter's lack of reliability, the RPD found that the letter was insufficient to establish the Appellant's identity. [29] The RPD also found that the Somali Community Center from Nebraska was not sufficiently probative. The letter stated that the Appellant had been an active community member there since 2014, but made no mention of the Appellant's place of birth or even citizenship. The Appellant's arguments [30] The Appellant challenges the RPD's overall approach to assessing the evidence. He says that rather than assessing the documents individually, the RPD ought to have assessed the evidence cumulatively and explained why the evidence, in its totality, did not establish the Appellant's identity. The Appellant emphasizes that as a Somali national, he faces unique challenges in corroborating his identity, and that the RPD failed to take this into account. [31] The Appellant states that his oral testimony on its own was deserving of weight, as sworn testimony should be accepted as truthful unless there are reasons to suggest otherwise. He says that his testimony about his identity and residence history should have been treated as being truthful. He states that he was able to provide specific details about his region of Somalia despite having not lived there for many years, and that he had knowledge about his Somali clan lineage. [32] The Appellant describes that the letter from Midaynta Community Services was incredibly detailed about the process of interviewing the Appellant. It spoke to his language abilities, his knowledge of geography, traditions and customs in Somalia, and landmarks. According to the Appellant, the letter's lack of detail is not supported by the evidence. The Appellant also faults the RPD for expecting the letter to do things that it could not possibly do, such as interviewing relatives. [33] With respect to the SASA letter and the letter from the Somali Community Center in Lexington, Nebraska, the Appellant argues that the RPD applied elevated standards to the evidence. He says that the RPD's reasons demonstrate an overzealous attempt to find reasons to reject the documents. The RAD's independent assessment [34] There is no merit to the Appellant's arguments on this issue. [35] The RPD's reasons demonstrate that it considered the Appellant's oral testimony and documentary evidence both individually and cumulatively. As already discussed, the RPD made a number of credibility findings with respect to the Appellant's oral testimony that led it to doubt his truthfulness. I consider that the presumption of truthfulness had been rebutted and that the RPD was correct to doubt the Appellant's unsupported oral statements. [36] I do not agree with the Appellant's description that the RPD was insensitive to the difficulties that are faced by Somali refugee claimants in establishing their identities. The RPD's identity analysis begins with a lengthy discussion on how Somalia's lack of competent civil authority and the destruction of records during the civil war meant that Somali nationals could not reasonably be expected to recover original identity documents. Though passports and other identity documents are reportedly being issued now, the RPD acknowledged that it remained difficult for some Somalis to obtain such documents, and that Somali refugee claimants would often need to present secondary sources in order to establish their identities. [37] I agree entirely with the RPD's weighing of the three documents provided by the Appellant. They lacked the necessary probative value and reliability to establish the Appellant's identity, even considered cumulatively. Midaynta Community Services' letter is indeed lacking in detail. Considering that there is an important distinction between the matters of nationality and ethnicity, there were certain factors that, even if believed, would not be determinative of the Appellant's nationality. The Appellant's fluency in Somali for instance, and his knowledge of Somali culture, spoke to his ethnicity but not necessarily to his nationality. As the RPD pointed out, there are significant numbers of ethnic Somalis in other countries who are not Somali citizens, including in a number of countries where the Appellant purports to have resided over the years. Although the Appellant's knowledge of the geography of his area might have been an indicator of his residence in Somalia, the letter did not indicate what specific questions were asked of the Appellant in this respect. It is impossible to determine from this letter whether the Appellant had a level of knowledge that could have been gained from a cursory internet search, or whether he had a depth of knowledge that would be consistent with someone who had lived in Somalia for many years as the Appellant claimed he had. This was a particular concern since, as the RPD noted, the Appellant could not even identify the neighbourhood in which he last resided in Somalia. Similarly, the letter lacks detail with respect to Midaynta's efforts to verify the witness' relationship to the Appellant. It is unclear whether they tested the witness' statements in any way or merely accepted them as reported. [38] I am not persuaded that the RPD applied some elevated standard to the evidence. The RPD was correct in its assessment of the reliability of the letters from SASA and the Somali Community Center in Lexington. The letter from Lexington says nothing at all about the Appellant's nationality. While I accept that the Appellant's participation in the Somali community in Lexington supports his Somali ethnicity, it does not carry significant weight in determining his nationality or his personal identity. The SASA letter also carries limited evidentiary value, as the author and witnesses do not describe how they are in a position to verify the Appellant's Somali nationality. As the RPD pointed out, the organization had limited knowledge about the Appellant, as he did not even reside in the area of the office that issued the letter. [39] I agree with the RPD that the support letters, even considered cumulatively, are not sufficiently reliable or probative in establishing the Appellant's nationality, and have even less value in establishing his personal identity. d) Whether the RPD erroneously considered the issue of the lack of corroborating documents and relied on speculation [40] The Appellant argues that the RPD incorrectly expected corroboration of his identity, and that the RPD wrongly speculated about what documents he could produce. There is no merit to this argument. The RPD's findings [41] The Appellant was 44 years old at the time of his RPD hearing. Despite claiming that he lived in several countries in his lifetime, including Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa, he had no evidence to support his identity, background, and personal history in any of these countries, apart from the SASA letter from South Africa. The RPD questioned the Appellant about his efforts to obtain evidence about his identity, but found that the Appellant's efforts were less than satisfactory. The RPD cited a number of concerns: * That the Appellant made little effort to obtain evidence from his immediate family members and in particular his mother, who supposedly possessed a Somali identity document. As discussed above, the RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation about being unaware of his mother's whereabouts. The RPD noted that the Appellant had not made any efforts to contact anyone at the Dadaab refugee camp, where his mother and siblings last resided before losing contact, in order to inquire about their whereabouts. * The RPD found it unusual that the Appellant had lost contact with his entire family, but that he had for some reason chosen to maintain regular contact over the years with a maternal cousin that he had last seen in 1991, who happened to be an identity witness living in Canada. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation that the reason for this was that she was the only person with a telephone and that none of his other family members were in Canada. * That the Appellant made no efforts to corroborate his residence in Kenya for thirteen years, for instance by obtaining an employment letter from his former employer. * That the Appellant had not provided any evidence about his marriage in Kenya and the fact that he has a child there, which was evidence that could reasonably have been expected. No evidence-not even a photograph of the child-was produced. * That the Appellant made insufficient efforts to document his status in South Africa. The Appellant claimed to have lost his South African refugee documents in Brazil. He explained that he had asked his friends in South Africa to approach the government to request documents pertaining to his status, but failed to give them the necessary authorizations to release his information. * That the Appellant failed to contact Brazilian authorities to obtain confirmation about his entry into Brazil using a Somali passport, which should have corroborated his travel route. * That the Appellant had not obtained evidence from relatives or clan members in the United States. The Appellant told U.S. authorities that he had many relatives in the United States, but when questioned by the RPD on this, he clarified that in fact they were clan members, and although some of them had known him in Somalia, he did not have their contact information. He failed to provide any detail about the efforts he made to attempt to contact them. [42] Having found that the Appellant was not credible, that he had failed to make reasonable efforts to corroborate his identity, and that his supporting documents were insufficient, the RPD determined that the Appellant's identity had not been established on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant's arguments [43] The Appellant argues that there is no general requirement to provide corroborating evidence and that the RPD was wrong to focus on the Appellant's lack of documents. The focus, according to the Appellant, should have rested on the documents that the Appellant did provide. Instead, the Appellant says that the RPD went on a quest to reject his claim. [44] Contrary to the RPD's finding, the Appellant says that his residence in South Africa was established by the SASA letter, and that the RPD therefore erred by failing to consider this. The Appellant says that it is reasonable that he did not have any documents from his immediate family, since he had explained multiple times that he had lost contact with them. The RPD was therefore asking him to do the impossible. With respect to the lack of documents about the Appellant's marriage in Kenya and the birth of his child there, the Appellant says that the RPD relied on unfounded speculation to expect that marriages would be documented in Kenya. The RAD's independent assessment [45] I am unpersuaded by the Appellant's arguments. [46] The RPD correctly considered that despite the challenges faced by Somalis in particular, the burden still rested with the Appellant to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities with credible and trustworthy evidence. However, apart from the SASA letter, there was not a single piece of evidence presented-whether from a family member, clan member, neighbour, friend, co-worker, or employer-to document the Appellant's whereabouts prior to his arrival in North America. [47] The RPD was correct to consider the Appellant's lack of evidence. Section 106 of the IRPA requires the RPD to take into account whether the refugee claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or whether they have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation.14 In addition, Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules requires claimants to provide acceptable documents establishing their identity. It states that claimants who do not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them.15 In light of these requirements, the RPD correctly sought to determine whether reasonable explanations were provided for the lack of evidence. The RPD explained that due to the difficulties faced by Somalis in obtaining evidence of identity and nationality, it would look to assess secondary sources and documents. It is for precisely this reason that the RPD looked at the possible secondary sources and documents that might have assisted in establishing the Appellant's identity. [48] Though I agree with the Appellant that the SASA letter supports the Appellant's residence in South Africa for a period of time, this was not sufficient as evidence of the Appellant's identity, for reasons that have already been discussed above. [49] On the lack of evidence from the Appellant's immediate family, I agree with the RPD. Not only did the RPD identify a discrepancy in the evidence with respect to the family's whereabouts, the RPD considered that the Appellant failed to make reasonable efforts to locate them. The Appellant's repeated statements that he had lost contact with his family were not enough. The RPD expected the Appellant to explain what efforts he took to attempt to find them. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's vague explanation about having made inquiries with some people in Nairobi is not sufficient. To the Appellant's knowledge, his mother and siblings last resided in Dadaab. The Appellant himself had lived and worked there. I fail to see why he would not have made efforts to contact individuals in Dadaab to attempt to locate his family members. [50] I also do not agree with the Appellant's argument that the RPD engaged in unfounded speculation about his ability to document his marriage in Kenya and his daughter's birth. The RPD did not speculate that he would have access to a marriage certificate, birth certificate, or other civil documents. The RPD's concern was that there was no evidence at all-not even a photograph-to corroborate these allegations. Surely there must have been some people, whether clan members, friends, neighbours, employers, co-workers, or others who might have been able to speak to the Appellant's time in Kenya and who he is. In my view, this issue, with respect to the overall lack of evidence, was never reasonably addressed by the Appellant. [51] Over the course of his life, the Appellant must have engaged in some activities that must have left a number of footprints and to his having kept a certain number of contacts. For instance, the Appellant claimed that he had many clan members in the United States who knew him in Somalia, but he failed to explain what efforts he made to reach any of them. He claimed that he had "relatives" in Pretoria, whom he would visit while in South Africa, but no evidence was provided from them. He indicated that he was registered in South Africa as a refugee, and that he renewed his refugee documents every two years. The Appellant stated in his U.S. interview that when he was in South Africa, he was able to show that he had citizenship in Somalia. If that is the case, it was all the more important for the Appellant to show that he had been registered in South Africa as a Somali refugee. The Appellant initiated his refugee claim in Canada in August 2016. His RPD hearing took place on June 13, 2018. During his time in Canada, he was represented by an experienced immigration lawyer. There is no reasonable explanation for the Appellant's failure to obtain evidence in almost two years with regard to his status in South Africa. The only piece of evidence of the Appellant's whereabouts prior to his arrival in North America is the letter from SASA. That there was otherwise not a single piece of evidence presented in support the Appellant's whereabouts for approximately fourteen years of residence in Somalia, thirteen years in Kenya, and eight years in South Africa is simply unreasonable. [52] Understandably, the RPD was not willing to accept the Appellant's identity on the basis of three support letters from community organizations that provided relatively little detail as to how they could be satisfied that the Appellant is a Somali national. As the RPD noted, the onus rested with the Appellant to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities, even if only through secondary evidence. The lack of even alternative sources of evidence, in conjunction with the Appellant's lack of credibility, correctly led the RPD to determine that the Appellant's identity had not been established on a balance of probabilities. e) Whether the RPD incorrectly considered Somalia's citizenship law [53] Lastly, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its consideration of Somalia's citizenship law. I find no error in the RPD's reasons. [54] The Appellant argues that according to Somalia's 1962 citizenship law, citizenship can be provided to anyone whose father is Somali, or anyone who is ethnically Somali and who renounces their claim to any other nationality. As the Appellant meets both criteria, he says that he is a Somali citizen. He goes on to repeat that he told U.S. officials that he was born in Ethiopia, but that he never told them that he was a citizen. He says that the mere fact of his birth in Ethiopia does not mean he is an Ethiopian citizen, as Somali citizenship is passed through paternity or through ethnicity. [55] The RPD did not commit an error. What the Appellant says about the Somali citizenship law is not in dispute. However, the RPD did not accept that the Appellant's father was a Somali national. In fact, there was evidence to suggest that his father might have been Ethiopian instead, as already mentioned. Though the Appellant is an ethnic Somali, and may be entitled to citizenship in Somalia, this does not mean that the Appellant is in fact a Somali citizen. It is quite possible that he is a citizen of another country, that he has not renounced that citizenship, and that he has never applied for Somali citizenship. This was one of the RPD's concerns. It is possible, for instance, that the Appellant's father was an Ethiopian citizen and that the Appellant has been an Ethiopian citizen his entire life. If the Appellant is in fact an Ethiopian citizen, his claim would have to be assessed against Ethiopia regardless of his entitlement to Somali nationality. The RPD did not incorrectly consider Somalia's citizenship law. CONCLUSION [56] On an independent assessment, I reach the same conclusion as the RPD. The Appellant has not established his identity on a balance of probabilities. This issue is determinative of the Appellant's claim. He cannot be recognized as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection without first establishing his identity. [57] I therefore confirm the RPD's negative determination. The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) M. Oh M. Oh July 27, 2020 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 157; see also Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 (CanLII). 2 RPD Hearing Recording, June 10, 2018, at 1:54:33. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim form, at p. 27. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., at p. 32. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, Credible fear interview notes, at p. 92. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., at p. 95. 9 Ibid. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at pp. 120-121. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at p. 125. 12 Ibid., at p. 124. 13 Ibid., at p. 126. 14 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (S.C. 2001, c. 27), section 106. 15 Refugee Protection Division Rules, (SOR/2012-256), Rule 11. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-17370 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français