VC0-03745

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-03745 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 XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 22, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Matthew Oh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jatin Shory 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") is a Norwegian citizen. She fears that her Norwegian citizenship will be revoked, and that she will be deported to Somalia, her country of birth. Though there were serious discrepancies with respect to the Appellant's identity, the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") accepted her declared identity. The RPD proceeded to reject the Appellant's claim against Norway, as it found that there was insufficient evidence to show that her citizenship would be revoked. The RPD determined that there was no serious possibility of persecution in Norway; nor was there a danger of torture, a risk to her life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The Appellant disputes this determination, and she submits new evidence in support of her claim. [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"),1 the appeal is dismissed. I have independently assessed the evidence and reached a different conclusion with respect to the Appellant's identity. I find that the Appellant advanced her refugee claim in Canada based on a fraudulent identity. Her true identity was later revealed through a biometric match to an individual from Norway. The Appellant claims that it is her Norwegian identity that is fraudulent, but I see little credible or reliable evidence of this. I do not believe her identity in Norway is based on misrepresentations. I have assessed the Appellant's risk of persecution in Norway. I determine that Norway's enforcement of its citizenship and immigration laws does not constitute persecution, and the prospect of deportation from Norway to Somalia remains speculative. The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") therefore confirms the RPD's decision. The Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the Appellant entered Canada. She initiated a refugee claim based on false allegations, posing as a refugee who had recently fled from Somalia. She presented herself as XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Somali citizen born on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997 in Mogadishu. She claimed that just several weeks earlier, men from Al-Shabaab approached her home in Mogadishu, where she lived with her aunt. They demanded that the Appellant marry their leader. The Appellant and her aunt supposedly went into hiding. The Appellant was found, but she escaped with her aunt's help. Her aunt was later killed. The Appellant falsely claimed that she journeyed to Kenya in late XXXX 2019 before reaching Canada through the assistance of an agent. She also falsely indicated that she entered Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 at Vancouver, using a fraudulent or improperly obtained passport that contained a photograph of someone who looked like her. [4] In truth, the Appellant is a Norwegian citizen. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ("the Minister") intervened in the claim, submitting evidence about the Appellant's identity and her possession of Norwegian nationality. The Appellant entered the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2019 with a Norwegian passport, under the identity of "XXXX XXXX XXXX", who was born on XXXX XXXX, 1986. She returned to Norway and re-entered the United States on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. She then used the same passport to enter Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 at Toronto Pearson International Airport. The Appellant initially denied that she was the person in the passport. However, her photograph and biometrics were sent to a liaison officer in order to confirm her identity with Norwegian authorities, who confirmed that the Appellant was in fact the individual in the Norwegian passport, XXXX XXXX XXXX. [5] After learning that the Minister had matched her identity with XXXX XXXX XXXX of Norway, the Appellant changed her story. She admitted that she was the person in the Norwegian passport. She claimed that both the name in her passport and the name she used for her refugee claim in Canada were genuine names she used interchangeably. She claims that she was born in 1997 and was only 13 years old when she went to Norway in 2010, where she obtained asylum. It was alleged that the Appellant's aunt sent her to Norway to earn money for her to send back to Somalia. She followed her aunt's advice to pretend to be an adult so that she could work. She pretended to be twenty-four years old, when in fact she was only thirteen. [6] The RPD heard the Appellant's claim on October 27, 2020 and rejected it in a written decision, dated November 3, 2020. The panel seemed to accept the Appellant's declared identity, including her date of birth on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997, and her interchangeable use of two names. The Appellant's Somali origins were also accepted. However, the RPD considered that Norway was a country of reference, as the Appellant continued to possess citizenship there. There was insufficient evidence to indicate that her nationality had been lost, or that it would be lost because of her misrepresentations about her name and date of birth. The Appellant also feared mistreatment from an aunt, who supposedly told her that she would report her to Norwegian authorities if she did not agree to marry her son for immigration purposes. However, this aunt's last known location was Turkey, and there was little to indicate that she had successfully made her way to Norway as desired. In addition, even if the Appellant's aunt was able to reach Norway, the RPD considered that the Appellant could receive protection from the police. The RPD believed the Appellant had been exploited by her aunt, and sympathized with the Appellant's situation in Norway, but found that there were no risks in Norway that entitled her to refugee protection. Role of the Refugee Appeal Division [7] The Appellant argues that the RAD should show deference to the RPD's credibility findings, as the RPD had the benefit of testing her credibility in person. She says the RPD had a meaningful advantage in interacting with her and concluding that she was a credible witness. [8] I disagree. 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 the evidence.2 In Rozas del Solar, the Federal Court held that, "Matters simply relating to oral testimony cannot suffice as a reason for deference".3 Hearing a claimant's testimony does not, in and of itself, confer a meaningful advantage. There are certain situations that may call for a deferential standard. For example, some aspects of a hearing may be incapable of being captured on the record, such as non-verbal cues and gestures. However, in the present case, the RAD has a full audio recording of the RPD hearing and there is no indication that the contents of the audio recording do not capture what occurred at the hearing. [9] 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. Admissibility of new evidence and request for an oral hearing [10] The Appellant has submitted many new pieces of evidence on appeal, including: i. An affidavit, sworn by the Appellant on February 19, 2021;4 ii. A XXXX evaluation, dated February 13, 2021;5 iii. An undated country conditions report on Norway;6 iv. A report from the Nordic Council of Ministers on citizenship in Nordic countries;7 v. A report from the Norwegian Institute for Social Research, on the revocation of residence and citizenship in Norway, dated September 2019; 8 vi. A print-out from the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration website, containing information about the loss of Norwegian citizenship;9 vii. A report from the Open Society Foundations on Somalis in Oslo, dated December 11, 2013;10 and viii. A thesis paper from a Master of Sociology student at the University of Oslo on Somali families in Norway, submitted in the spring of 2010.11 [11] I have admitted all of the above evidence. [12] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA states that, on appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the claim's rejection. If the new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, the RAD must then consider factors around the credibility, relevance, and newness of the evidence.12 [13] Though the evidence presented on appeal could have been available for the Appellant to provide to the RPD, had she sought it, I am satisfied that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to present this evidence, under her circumstances. The Appellant was not represented by counsel at the RPD. The Appellant states in her affidavit that she only learned about the possibility of obtaining assistance from Legal Aid Alberta after her claim was denied. I note that the Appellant was given the opportunity to speak to Legal Aid Alberta when she was placed in immigration detention, however I am willing to accept the possibility that she may not have been aware of the availability of a wider range of services to assist her with her RPD hearing. The Appellant's lack of legal representation, along with her lack of education and experience, meant that she was disadvantaged in her ability to present relevant evidence to the RPD. For the purposes of admissibility, the documents are credible, new, and relevant. They are all admitted. Evidence provided in response to the RAD's notice [14] On March 19, 2021, the RAD gave notice to the Appellant of its intention to consider multiple issues that were not raised in the appeal. The issues were described as follows: * Whether the RPD reached the correct determination with respect to the Appellant's identity, including her name and date of birth; * Whether the RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant had misrepresented her identity in Norway through the influence of an aunt; and * Whether the Appellant's evidence is credible, in light of the information contained in the Minister's intervention. [15] The RAD invited the Appellant to respond to these issues. The Appellant took this opportunity and sought an extension of time to provide additional new evidence and written submissions. The extension was granted, and the Appellant's additional new evidence and arguments were received on June 18, 2021. [16] The additional new evidence included: ix. A legal opinion from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"), an asylum lawyer in Norway;13 x. A letter of support from the Appellant's family friend, who lives in the United States;14 xi. A letter of support from the Appellant's maternal uncle, who lives in Ethiopia;15 xii. A copy of the Appellant's Norwegian travel document;16 and xiii. Various untranslated documents from the Appellant's Norwegian asylum file.17 [17] I have admitted items (ix) through (xii), for reasons similar to those given for the new evidence contained in the Appellant's Record. [18] Item (xiii), however, will not be admitted. Rule 28 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules provides that any documents that are not in English or French must be accompanied by a translation and a translator's declaration. The Appellant has provided neither. She explains that she does not have the means to provide a full translation, and that the documents are merely being provided as evidence that they exist. The facts, as to whether the Appellant sought asylum in Norway, and whether she provided a copy of her asylum file to Mr. XXXX, are not at issue. However, I am unable to assess the documents in item (xiii) in the absence of a translation. For this reason, item (xiii) will not be admitted. Request for an oral hearing [19] The Appellant requests an oral hearing, in the event that there are issues with respect to her credibility. Though there are indeed credibility issues, the Minister's intervention alerted the Appellant to these issues and she was questioned on them during her RPD hearing. The issues were clearly identified, and the Appellant's Counsel was provided with a full copy of the Minister's intervention package. The Appellant has had an opportunity to address the concerns both at the RPD hearing and on appeal. [20] I see little reason to hold an oral hearing in this instance. Section 110(6) of the IRPA provides that the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is new evidence that raises a serious issue with respect to the Appellant's credibility, that is central to the decision on the refugee claim, and that if, accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. In this case, the new evidence does not meet the criteria, particularly as accepting the new evidence would not justify allowing or rejecting the claim. [21] Though the Appellant's credibility is at issue, I have not identified any discrepancies in the new evidence that the Appellant is not already aware of, nor are there any contradictions that I need to put to the Appellant for an explanation. The only step remaining at this stage is to weigh the evidence. Below, I explain why the new evidence with respect to the Appellant's identity lacks probative value, and why in the ultimate weighing of the evidence, the documents were not sufficiently persuasive. The request for an oral hearing is denied. ANALYSIS [22] The issues in this appeal are as follows: a) Whether the RPD correctly assessed the evidence around the Appellant's identity; and b) Whether the Appellant faces a risk of persecution in Norway. [23] These are addressed in detail below. a) Whether the RPD correctly assessed the evidence around the Appellant's identity [24] The RPD accepted the Appellant's declared identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX and simultaneously "XXXX XXXX XXXX", born in or around XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997.18 The Appellant argues that the RPD's decision is correct, however I disagree with the RPD's conclusion. The RPD's findings [25] At the RPD hearing, the Appellant testified that she was given the name, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at birth. She explained that after her mother remarried, she took the name of her mother's new husband, and she became XXXX XXXX XXXX. She was supposedly known interchangeably by both names in Somalia. The Appellant also testified that when she went to Norway in 2010, she was only thirteen years old. Following the instructions of her manipulative and abusive aunt, the Appellant says she posed as an adult, so that she could work and send remittances back to her aunt in Somalia. [26] The Appellant's declared identity, as XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997, was supported by nothing except the Appellant's oral testimony. And, as the Minister had argued, the Appellant lacked credibility because of her repeated insistence that she was not XXXX XXXX XXXX, even after being confronted with the information about the Norwegian passport that she now admits is hers. Despite the falsehoods told by the Appellant prior to her hearing, and the lack of any other evidence to support the Appellant's oral testimony, the RPD found that the Appellant had established her identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX and "XXXX XXXX XXXX", born on XXXX XXXX, 1997. The RPD found that the use of a second, alternate name was not evidence of a fraudulent identity, and the panel was persuaded that the aunt had a very strong influence on the Appellant's decisions until her arrival in Canada. The Appellant's arguments [27] The Appellant continues to rely on the testimony she gave at her RPD hearing. She arrived in Norway without any support, and everything was orchestrated by her aunt, who had a controlling influence over her life even from Somalia. She emphasizes that her use of a false date of birth in Norway caused her to be excluded from Norway's education system, such that she dedicated her whole life in Norway to serving her aunt in Somalia. The Appellant says that, as an unrepresented, uneducated, and traumatized young woman with minimal English skills, she had little understanding of the kind of process she was engaging in when she was interviewed by Canadian immigration officers. [28] The Appellant recognizes that there are discrepancies in her statements to Canada Border Services Agency ("CBSA") officers. She does not deny that her name, as registered in Norway, is XXXX XXXX XXXX. She states that she was forced to take the name of her mother's husband after her remarriage. She states that her choice to use her birth name in Canada represents her intent to walk away from the conditions in Norway from which she seeks protection. She says, given her personal circumstances, she could not be expected to appreciate the nuances of presenting a different name to immigration authorities in Canada. Regardless of the inconsistencies in her statements, the Appellant believes the RPD had the benefit of testing her credibility in person. She did not conceal any information during her hearing, and she was fully transparent. The RPD's decision, she says, should therefore be followed, and given deference. The RAD's independent assessment [29] I have reviewed the evidence from the RPD Record, as well as the Appellant's new evidence, but I remain unsatisfied of the Appellant's declared identity. On a balance of probabilities, I determine that the Appellant is "XXXX XXXX XXXX", as indicated in her Norwegian travel document - an individual born on XXXX XXXX, 1986 in Mogadishu.19 [30] Although a refugee claimant's sworn testimony benefits from a presumption of truthfulness, that presumption may be rebutted when a decision-maker identifies a valid reason to doubt the truthfulness of the testimony. This may take the form of a contradiction, omission, or implausibility that is not reasonably explained. In the absence of credible testimony, the decision-maker may turn to a claimant's supporting evidence to determine whether the allegations presented by the claimant are true. The Minister's intervention [31] There were serious credibility concerns highlighted in the Minister's intervention package, which, in my view, were not adequately addressed by the RPD in its decision. The Appellant gave two entirely different accounts of her identity and background information. She was not forthright with Canadian immigration officers even when given multiple opportunities. [32] The Appellant's inconsistent and evolving statements about her identity are highly concerning. I am unpersuaded by the Appellant's arguments about the nuances of the immigration system being lost on her. To the contrary, she was well-aware of what she was doing. This was not an innocent mistake on the Appellant's part. She went to great lengths to avoid the disclosure of the identity she had used for at least the previous nine years in Norway. [33] When the Appellant initiated her refugee claim, she indicated that her name was XXXX XXXX XXXX, and she denied having ever used any other name.20 She claimed that she had only recently left Somalia. She declared that she had completed high school in Mogadishu and lived there until XXXX 2019.21 She told a horrific story of fleeing forced marriage, gunfire from Al-Shabaab, and the murder of her aunt just a couple of months before her arrival in Canada.22 The Basis of Claim ("BOC") form and immigration forms were completed on December 4, 2019. [34] However, as the RPD would later learn, the Appellant relocated to Norway in 2010 and she obtained citizenship there under a completely different identity from the one she declared in Canada. The Appellant concealed this fact and insisted that she was not XXXX XXXX XXXX. She only began to admit it was her once a biometric match irrefutably established that she was in fact a Norwegian citizen. [35] On January 7, 2020, the Appellant was interviewed by an immigration officer, but the Appellant stated that she had not used any other names apart from XXXX XXXX XXXX. She denied being fingerprinted in the past, and she claimed that she had only ever lived in Somalia and in Kenya. She denied having sought refugee protection in the past. She stated that she used a passport to leave Kenya, but she did not know what type of passport. She recalled only that it had a photograph of someone who looked like her. She did not know the route she took to reach Canada. She claimed that everything was arranged by her aunt.23 Much of the information given at this interview was untrue. [36] Shortly after the intake interview with immigration officers, the Appellant spoke to a CBSA officer. In a statutory declaration, the CBSA officer provides an in-depth description of her interview with the Appellant. The officer had received information about a fingerprint match for the Appellant, showing an entry into the United States on June 30, 2019 using a Norwegian passport under the name XXXX XXXX XXXX.24 The same passport, under the name "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" was then used to enter Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 at Pearson International Airport.25 When confronted with the name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the Appellant seemed to express confusion. She denied that it was her. She indicated that perhaps it was the name on the false passport she used. The Appellant seemed to be less than cooperative in the attempts to obtain her fingerprints.26 [37] Two days later, on January 9, 2020, the Appellant was again interviewed. This time, when the CBSA officer informed her that they had confirmed her identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, and showed her the photograph from her Norwegian passport, the Appellant began to admit that this was her. She claimed that XXXX XXXX XXXX was the name given to her by her grandmother and she uses one name more than the other.27 [38] Another interview took place on January 15, 2020. This time, when an immigration officer attempted to replace the Appellant's name with the name contained in her Norwegian passport, the Appellant strongly objected. She stated that she is not XXXX XXXX XXXX, but instead she is XXXX, a name given to her by her mother at birth. Despite previously admitting that she was the individual in the Norwegian passport, she claimed that the fingerprint match was wrong, and that both the name and date of birth were incorrect. She stated that she came to Canada to change her name and date of birth, because they were incorrect. The Appellant stated that her aunt gave her the other name and she would hit and abuse her if she did not use it. The Appellant refused to sign any documents in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX.28 I note that an interpreter was provided for the Appellant at each of these interviews. [39] In light of these issues, the RPD should have been quite concerned about the Appellant's willingness to deceive and mislead immigration officers about her identity. The RPD gave very few reasons to justify why it suddenly believed the Appellant's testimony, especially in the absence of any corroborative evidence. The RPD noted that the Appellant's work permit in Canada was issued under the name XXXX XXXX XXXX. The panel did not believe the use of a second name was indicative of fraud. [40] In my view, the Appellant's false statements badly tainted her credibility, and wholly rebutted the presumption of the truthfulness of her testimony. The issuance of a Canadian work permit in the Appellant's alleged birth name is of little assistance in establishing her identity. It merely indicates that a work permit was issued in the same name given by the Appellant in the immigration forms she completed when she initiated her refugee claim, and consequently the same name in her Confirmation of Referral and Refugee Protection Claimant Document.29 [41] The Appellant has attempted to explain away the problems in her evidence, but I reject her explanations. According to the Appellant, the name XXXX XXXX XXXX is the name that derives from her mother's husband. She testified that her mother remarried when she was two years old, and which point she sent the Appellant to live with her aunt. She states that because of the remarriage, her name changed. The Appellant stated that her aunts were calling her XXXX, and eventually that is how she came to be known, though she was also called XXXX by others. [42] The Appellant's allegations about Somali naming customs after remarriage are not supported by any objective evidence. I note that, according to the Appellant's affidavit, her mother gave her away to her aunt at two years of age because her new husband did not have money to support the Appellant. After this, the Appellant only saw her mother once, briefly, when she was eight years old. The Appellant never saw her again, and she is completely unaware of her whereabouts.30 It is unusual that such a name change would occur if the mother's new husband did not want to claim the Appellant as his child, and if the Appellant had virtually no relationship with her mother after the age of two. In addition, though her explanation about remarriage might explain a change in her family name, it does not explain why her given name, XXXX, would suddenly change to XXXX, nor does it explain why she would be known interchangeably by both names. [43] The explanation about remarriage also does not reconcile the Appellant's statements during her January 15, 2020 interview. If, according to the Appellant, her name is XXXX XXXX XXXX as much as it is XXXX XXXX XXXX, I do not see why she would so adamantly deny that she is XXXX XXXX XXXX. During that interview, the Appellant strenuously and repeatedly denied that this was her name. She stated that she tore up her Norwegian passport because it did not bear her true name. She accused her aunt of giving her that name, and abusing and hitting her if she did not use it.31 [44] In addition, I note that the Appellant initially indicated that she was not known by any other name. The explanation about remarriage might have been easier to accept, had the Appellant not actively sought to deny the use of any other name until she was confronted with a biometric match. [45] As for the Appellant's date of birth, I am again unpersuaded by the explanations offered. The Appellant stresses how her aunt XXXX, and later her aunt XXXX, were able to exercise an unusual degree of control over her life in Norway, all the way from Somalia.32 The Appellant was expected to work and send money back to Somalia, with the promise of being reconnected to her mother one day. She was instructed to pose as an adult, when in fact she was only about thirteen years old when she arrived in Norway. In her psychological evaluation, the Appellant claimed that she felt as though she was constantly being spied upon by her aunt, through Somali community members in Oslo. If she walked down the street in the morning without her hijab, she would receive a phone call from her aunt in Somalia in the afternoon, berating her for her behaviour.33 This strikes me as an incredibly far-fetched and convenient explanation. Again, had these facts been presented from the very outset, they might have been more convincing. In this case, where the Appellant has demonstrated a willingness to mislead immigration authorities at her convenience, I place no weight on any of her unsupported testimony. The letter from XXXX XXXX [46] I have considered and weighed the letter from the Appellant's family friend, Ms. XXXX, as well as a letter from her maternal uncle. However, I am not persuaded that these documents establish the Appellant's identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, born in or around 1997. [47] Ms. XXXX claims to be the Appellant's family friend. She believes that the Appellant was born some time in 1999, and remembers seeing her as a baby, as she was neighbours with the Appellant's family in Mogadishu. Ms. XXXX states that the Appellant's mother was a woman named XXXX XXXX.34 This is somewhat similar to the name given by the Appellant in Norway to identify her mother, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and it in turn bears some resemblance to the name given in Appellant's BOC form, XXXX XXXX.35 [48] It is alleged that in or around 2019, Ms. XXXX reconnected with the Appellant through someone on a Facebook group for Somali refugees. The Appellant posted in the group, and Ms. XXXX friend reached out to her because it seemed that the two had lived in the same area in Somalia. Ms. XXXX learned that the Appellant was in Norway, and she invited the Appellant to visit her in the United States, providing her with the funds to fly there in XXXX 2019 and a second time later the same year.36 [49] Even if I were to accept that Ms. XXXX lived in the same area as the Appellant in Somalia and saw the Appellant as a baby, her evidence has very limited probative value. It is incapable of overcoming the concerns with respect to the Appellant's name and date of birth. [50] As the Appellant points out in her supplementary memorandum, Ms. XXXX cannot accurately recall the Appellant's year of birth. Ms. XXXX states that the Appellant was born in 1999, but the Appellant claims she was born some time in 1997. I also note that Ms. XXXX would have spent very little time with the Appellant in Somalia. She states in her letter that she left Somalia soon after the Appellant's birth, as she departed to Kenya in 1999, and arrived in the United States in 2000. She stated that after arriving in the United States, she did not keep in touch with the Appellant or her family. She heard news from the community about certain families from time to time, and so she was vaguely aware that the Appellant had passed into the care of her aunt XXXX.37 [51] In addition to the lack of reliable evidence about the Appellant's date of birth, Ms. XXXX does not mention anything about the Appellant's interchangeable, alternate name or how it comes from the remarriage of the Appellant's mother. This would have been an important fact to address since, in Norway, the Appellant claimed that her father was XXXX XXXX, but in Canada the Appellant claims that her father is XXXX XXXX.38 Ms. XXXX does not appear to be aware of the identity used by the Appellant in Norway, nor the alleged change in the Appellant's name after her mother remarried. She addresses neither of these facts directly. [52] Given these limitations in the evidence, I give Ms. XXXX letter little weight. Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX [53] The Appellant also provided a photograph of a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, an Ethiopian citizen who resides in Gode. The letter is very brief. The author states that the Appellant is his niece, she was born in Mogadishu on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997, and her mother was XXXX XXXX XXXX. He does not know where the Appellant's mother lives.39 [54] Like Ms. XXXX letter, this letter also lacks important details. It does not mention whether the author and the Appellant have ever met. It says nothing about the length of time that the two have known each other. It does not say how the author has ascertained the Appellant's full name, nor does it address the identity of the Appellant's father or the existence of an alternate name from the remarriage of the Appellant's mother. Though the author states that the Appellant was born in Mogadishu on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1997, he does not explain how he has knowledge of this. Even the Appellant is unaware of when she was born. In her own affidavit, she stated that she could not confirm her true date of birth, though she believes it is some time in 1997.40 It is possible that the author is truly the Appellant's maternal uncle. However, I am unable to determine how he has knowledge of the Appellant's full name and date of birth, or whether he is merely reiterating information that the Appellant has provided to him. [55] Again, this letter lacks probative value in establishing the Appellant's true name and date of birth, which are the key facts with respect to the Appellant's identity that have been at issue since the Minister first intervened in the claim. Conclusions with respect to the Appellant's identity [56] I have weighed the entirety of the evidence and determine that the Appellant is XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1986. To be clear, this is the very same identity reflected in the Appellant's Norwegian travel document, used by the Appellant to obtain citizenship in Norway, and used by her to travel to the United States and Canada.41 [57] The Appellant arrived in Norway in late 2009 and lived there until 2019, presenting herself with that identity, telling no one about any other name or age.42 She applied for citizenship with that name and date of birth, obtained a Norwegian passport with that identity, and presented herself in the United States on two occasions as this same individual. In my view, the Appellant's continued use of this identity over an extended period of time, with very little evidence of any alternate identity, is informative of her identity. [58] The Appellant claims that she misrepresented her name and age to the Norwegian authorities, but she demonstrated that she was an untrustworthy witness. I do not place any weight on her unsupported statements. There was no other evidence to support the Appellant's far-fetched explanation about a pair of aunts who were controlling her life from a continent away. The Appellant provided no evidence of any remittances sent to either aunt from Norway, no evidence of any communications, or other credible evidence about their influence. The Appellant's explanations about her aunts and the misrepresentation of her identity in Norway only arose after her falsehoods to Canadian immigration officers were caught. The Appellant at first repeatedly denied the use of any other name, denied living in Norway, and she denied possessing a genuine Norwegian passport. Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the Appellant presented herself in Canada with a different name and date of birth, in order to thwart the discovery of her Norwegian citizenship. Her inconsistent and evolving explanations about her true identity, between the various interviews and the RPD hearing, cause me to doubt her testimony. I find that the Appellant's statements about her interchangeable name and her false date of birth are merely attempts to reconcile her current evidence with her previous statements, to the extent possible. [59] The Appellant's testimony and affidavit, the letter from Ms. XXXX, and the letter from the Appellant's maternal uncle are insufficient to overcome the issues with the Appellant's name and true date of birth. I do not accept that she misrepresented her identity in Norway. I find that her identity is precisely as presented to Norwegian authorities, and I see little reason to believe otherwise. b) Whether the Appellant faces a risk of persecution in Norway [60] The Appellant believes that she will lose her citizenship in Norway, and she argues that because of this, she is likely to be deported to Somalia. The RPD considered and rejected this possibility. Even after admitting and considering the Appellant's new evidence, I too find that the Appellant's deportation from Norway to a situation of persecution in Somalia is not a likely scenario. The RPD's findings [61] The Appellant believes that, due to the misrepresentations made in Norway about her name and age, the authorities in that country will revoke her citizenship. She had heard that other Somalis in Norway had experienced this and they were then deported to Somalia. The RPD believed there was no evidentiary basis to support the Appellant's fears. [62] The RPD reviewed the Norwegian Nationality Act, which was contained in the National Documentation Package ("NDP") for Norway. There were multiple ways to lose nationality, but the RPD was unable to identify any legal avenue to revoke citizenship for misrepresentations like the ones allegedly made by the Appellant. Instead, the RPD believed the legislation envisaged criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment. The RPD did not believe there was sufficient evidence to show that a loss of citizenship could occur in the way the Appellant believed it could. [63] The RPD also found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Appellant's aunt posed a threat to her citizenship. It was alleged that the aunt was attempting to force the Appellant into marriage with her son, for immigration purposes. According to the Appellant, her aunt was in Turkey, making her way to Norway. The impending arrival of her aunt caused the Appellant to flee to Canada. The aunt supposedly threatened to report the Appellant to the authorities in Norway for living under a false identity. The RPD was not persuaded that there was a risk from the aunt, as it was not even clear that she had reached Norway. The RPD found that if the aunt attempted to abuse her in Norway, the Appellant could receive protection from the police. The Appellant's arguments [64] The Appellant believes the RPD reached the wrong conclusion. Her new evidence confirms that the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration ("UDI") has the authority to revoke citizenship in instances where the original grant of citizenship was invalid. If, during the application process, incorrect or incomplete information was provided, or if the individual intentionally withheld important information that was important to the decision to grant the application, citizenship may be revoked.43 The Appellant highlights a report from 2019, indicating that in recent years, revocations on this basis had intensified. Revocations for individuals of Somali origin were especially high, far outpacing those of other nationalities.44 A legal opinion from a Norwegian asylum lawyer discusses why the revocation of the Appellant's citizenship is a plausible scenario. [65] The Appellant argues that, under the circumstances, she will be forced into marriage with her aunt's son. The Appellant acknowledges that her aunt's whereabouts are unknown, however if she was able to arrange the Appellant's entry into Norway from Somalia, this suggests that she has the resources to notify the Norwegian authorities about the deception that she constructed with respect to the Appellant's identity. The aunt has a strong network in the Somali community in Norway. If the Appellant does not agree to a marriage with her cousin, she would face a serious possibility of persecution, as her aunt would report her to Norwegian authorities. The Appellant submits that she cannot seek state protection in Norway because of her mental health status and because approaching the police for protection would precipitate the revocation of her citizenship, and ultimately cause her to be removed to Somalia. The RAD's independent assessment [66] The analysis provided further above, relating to the Appellant's identity and credibility, disposes of many of the Appellant's arguments. I do not believe the Appellant's identity in Norway is based on misrepresentations. I also do not accept that there is a risk of forced marriage, as this was not supported by any evidence apart from the Appellant's testimony. As explained, the Appellant was not a trustworthy witness. I do not place weight on any of her unsupported statements, including about threats and mistreatment from her aunts. [67] However, it seems that the revocation issue does not stop there. The Appellant also argues that her citizenship in Norway is susceptible to revocation because Norwegian authorities will believe that her asylum claim was fraudulent. This, the Appellant says, is part of a pattern of targeting Somalis who successfully sought asylum in Norway around the same time that she arrived there. I have considered this possibility, but I find that the risk of removal from Norway to Somalia remains speculative. [68] The RPD clearly reached the wrong conclusion on the possibility of citizenship revocation where a person's citizenship is fraudulently acquired. The copy of the Norwegian Nationality Act contained in the Norway NDP indicates, at section 26, that a revocation of citizenship can occur for material misrepresentations. It states: An administrative decision regarding nationality may be revoked if it is possible to reverse it pursuant to section 35 of the Public Administration Act or general rules of administrative law. However, revocation of nationality that is based on incorrect or incomplete information may only be carried out if the applicant has furnished the incorrect information against his or her better judgment or has suppressed circumstances of substantial importance for the decision.45 [69] The Appellant's new evidence confirms her interpretation. A person who has fraudulently acquired Norwegian citizenship may subsequently have it revoked.46 [70] The Nordic Council of Ministers report indicates that, from 2007 to 2017, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration ("UDI") made 200 decisions to revoke citizenship for fraudulent conduct. Those numbers were expected to increase as, at the time of the report, there were 700 cases pending.47 A slightly more recent report from the Norwegian Institute for Social Research ("IFS") indicated that between March 2017 and December 2018, there were 440 citizenship revocation cases either registered or open, for those of Somali origin.48 [71] According to the legal opinion from Mr. XXXX, the Norwegian immigration authorities are increasingly working on revocation, cessation, and expulsion cases, particularly for Somalis who arrived in Norway from 2008 to 2011. Applications for renewal, citizenship, family immigration, or other kinds of applications trigger reassessments of case files to see if the initial decision was correct.49 Mr. XXXX reviewed the Appellant's Norwegian asylum file and gave several reasons why a reassessment of the Appellant's case might lead Norwegian authorities to conclude that she gave false information: * The information in the Appellant's file about her reasons for seeking asylum contains very few details; * Her allegations are not consistent with information about the situation in Mogadishu in 2009, such as whether Al-Shabaab members would have given women a warning before kidnapping them; * She had little knowledge of her family and clan, which is considered unusual for Somalis, especially from the Hawiye clan; * The size of the Appellant's family on her mother's side seems small given the average number of children per woman in Somalia; * There were discrepancies in the Appellant's description of how she paid for her flight; and * She gave inconsistent information to authorities about whether she had any siblings.50 [72] Mr. XXXX appreciates that there may be credible explanations for the above issues, but he still believes that immigration authorities will conclude that she has given false information. He states that if it is determined that false information was given, a proportionality assessment is done. However, he says that in practice, the Appellant would lose her citizenship. The Appellant would then be a foreign national without a residence permit, and she would be at risk of removal. This too entails a proportionality assessment, but Mr. XXXX states that, in practice, a Somali woman without children would be expelled. He adds that he has had cases where Somalis have had their status revoked due to information obtained by Norwegian authorities from immigration authorities in other countries, including Canada. Though Mr. XXXX cannot guarantee that there will be a review of the Appellant's case, he believes it highly probable that there will be.51 [73] It is important to recall that, as a Norwegian citizen, the Appellant must establish a claim against Norway. The question, with respect to risk, is what treatment the Appellant faces in Norway. Mr. XXXX legal opinion is certainly deserving of weight, however Norway's enforcement of its citizenship and immigration laws does not constitute persecution on a Convention ground. To the extent that deportation to a dangerous situation in Somalia constitutes persecution, I believe the Appellant's prospect of removal to Somalia remains speculative. Even if the Appellant's claim in Canada under a different identity triggers a review of the Appellant's file in Norway, Mr. XXXX describes a lengthy legal process leading to deportation. The revocation of citizenship does not automatically result in deportation. Following the revocation process, the Appellant would then undergo deportation proceedings. As indicated in the legal opinion, both processes involve proportionality assessments. In addition, according to the IFS report, the revocation process also entails an opportunity to appeal the UDI's decision at the Immigration Appeals Board ("UNE").52 [74] In fact, the IFS report found that, when looking at all types of revocation cases processed from March 2017 to December 2018, only about 17% of Somali cases resulted in the revocation of status. A great majority of revocation cases were dismissed.53 The authors of the IFS report posited that the UDI was seeking to prioritize clear-cut dismissal cases, and they found that this was supported by their interviews with civil servants.54 [75] The IFS report also indicates that the revocation of one permit may lead to residence permits being granted on new grounds. For example, where a first decision is revoked due to incorrect information, the affected individual may then acquire a residence permit on the basis of correct information.55 In addition, the IFS report states that any foreigner in Norway would be protected by the principle of non-refoulement, regardless of their legal status.56 The Appellant is an unmarried woman and she is unable to access family or social supports in Somalia. Mr. XXXX states that this is likely why she was granted asylum in the first place.57 The legal opinion takes for granted that an investigation into the Appellant would reveal that she has transferred money to her aunt in Somalia, which would lead authorities to conclude that she has given false information about her network in Somalia. Given my findings about the Appellant's lack of credibility in relation to her Somali aunts, Mr. XXXX legal opinion does not adequately explain why, despite Norway's commitment to the principle of non-refoulement, the Appellant is still likely to face removal to a situation of persecution in Somalia. I find that the prospect of removal to Somalia, especially in violation of the principle of non-refoulement, remains speculative. [76] On a final note, I recognize that the Appellant's return to Norway is likely to exacerbate her mental health issues. According to the XXXX evaluation, the Appellant suffers from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.58 The Appellant has made Canada her home for almost two years. The Appellant's return to Norway may have the unfortunate effect of disrupting her treatment plan, but this does not mean that she faces risks in Norway that entitle her to refugee protection. CONCLUSION [77] To summarize, I disagree with the RPD's conclusions with respect to the Appellant's identity. The Appellant is XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1986, and a citizen of Norway. I reject her allegation that she is known interchangeably as XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that she was born in 1997. The Appellant was not a credible witness, given her repeated attempts to conceal her Norwegian citizenship and her false statements throughout the refugee process. There was insufficient credible evidence of any influence from her aunts, or any risks from them. [78] To date, the Appellant remains a citizen of Norway and she has not established a claim against that country. I am not satisfied that there is a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Norway; nor does the Appellant face a danger of torture, a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment there. Therefore, while I disagree with the RPD's reasons, I confirm the negative decision. The Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [79] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) M. Oh M. Oh July 22, 2021 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157; see also Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 3 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 at paras. 105-106. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 12-16. 5 Ibid., at pp. 17-23. 6 Ibid., at pp. 24-37. 7 Ibid., at pp. 38-56. 8 Ibid., at pp. 58-116. 9 Ibid., at p. 57. 10 Ibid., at pp. 117-121. 11 Ibid., at pp. 122-137. 12 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96, [2016] 4 FCR 230. 13 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, June 18, 2021, at pp. 12-15. 14 Ibid., at pp. 6-8. 15 Ibid., at pp. 9-11. 16 Ibid., at p. 86. 17 Ibid., at pp. 16-85, 87-119. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at pp. 4-5. 19 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, at p. 86. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, IMM 0008 form, at p. 23. 21 Ibid., Schedule A form, at pp. 30-31; see also Schedule 12 form, at p. 34. 22 Ibid., Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim form, at p. 13. 23 Ibid., Exhibit 4, at pp. 62-63. 24 Ibid., at p. 67. 25 Ibid., at p. 61. 26 Ibid., at pp. 57-59. 27 Ibid., at p. 59. 28 Ibid., at pp. 64-65. 29 Ibid., Exhibit 1, at pp. 46 and 52. 30 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 13. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 64-65. 32 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 13. 33 Ibid., at p. 19. 34 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, at pp. 6-7. 35 Ibid., at p. 12; see also Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim form, at p. 18. 36 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, at pp. 6-7. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., at p. 12; see also Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, Schedule A form, at p. 29 and Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim form, at p. 18. 39 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, at p. 9. 40 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 13. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 61 and 67; see also Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, at p. 86. 42 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, at p. 12. 43 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 71. 44 Ibid., at pp. 61 and 89. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Norway (March 31, 2020), item 3.1, Norway, 2006. 46 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 55 and 71. 47 Ibid., at pp. 55-56. 48 Ibid., at p. 89. 49 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, at p. 14. 50 Ibid., at pp. 13-14. 51 Ibid. at pp. 14-15. 52 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 73-74. 53 Ibid., at p. 91. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid., at p. 72. 56 Ibid. 57 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, at p. 12. 58 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 20. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-03745 RAD.25.02 (May 19, 2021) 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 (May 19, 2021) Disponible en français