TB9-27039

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-27039 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 Vancouver, BC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision October 1, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Ron Liberman Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Tina Hlimi Barrister and Solicitor 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) appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated August 27, 2019, rejecting his claim for refugee protection because the RPD found he failed to establish his identity. I have conducted an independent analysis of all the evidence concerned, including the entire Appellant Record and the oral testimony. Although I find that some of the findings made by the RPD in the decision I am reviewing are in error, I find there are other findings which are correct. I have credibility concerns about this claim that relate to the question of identity, and I find in total that there is insufficient credible evidence to establish the Appellant's identity. Consequently, I find that the Appellant is neither a Convention1 refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [2] This is the second time this matter has come before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The Appellant's claim was originally heard by the RPD on June 22, 2017. For convenience, I will hereafter refer to the Panel which heard this claim as RPD1. The Appellant's claim was dismissed by the RPD1 on July 14, 2017. On April 25, 2018 the RAD found that the RPD1 had made significant errors in its decision, but that nevertheless there were "glaring credibility concerns"2 evident, and it returned the matter to the RPD for redetermination. The second hearing of the claim by the RPD (the Panel which I will refer to hereafter as RPD2) took place on June 11, 2019 and August 21, 2019, and which resulted in the decision under appeal. [3] The Appellant alleges he is a Somali national, of the minority XXXX clan, and that he fears persecution from Al-Shabaab and the Ogaden clan. Prior to crossing the border into Canada, the Appellant made a claim in the United States (US) which was denied. RPD findings [4] The RPD2 found numerous credibility concerns, and that the Appellant had failed to provide an explanation as to why his family had not provided documents to corroborate his identity. Moreover, he had failed to contact a Community Association despite the RPD1 decision having identified this same issue as impugning his credibility. The evidence of a witness and the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish his identity. Appellant's arguments [5] The Appellant argues that the RPD2 was microscopic and unreasonable in its analysis of the Appellant's evidence and the testimony; if the totality of the evidence is examined, including evidence from the RPD1 hearing, it is apparent that the Appellant has established his identity as a Somali national, and that he does belong to the minority XXXX clan. The difficulty of obtaining documents from Somalia is a significant barrier, and the Appellant has made all reasonable efforts to establish his identity. The Appellant submits the RPD2 erred in its analysis of credibility, including in applying North American standards when doing so. The Appellant is at particular risk if returned to Somalia because of his minority clan status and because he has lived in Western countries, the latter circumstance putting him at risk of having political opinions which run counter to the extreme ideology of Al-Shabaab imputed to him. NEW EVIDENCE [6] The Appellant's Record before me includes a written statement that the Appellant is not submitting any new evidence, but that he has applied to the US authorities for a full copy of his US asylum claim. At the time of my decision, I have not received further documents resulting from this request to the US authorities. [7] Although the Appellant states he is not providing new evidence, the Appellant has provided an affidavit, and Counsel's Memorandum seeks to rely on some of the facts asserted by the Appellant in that Memorandum. [8] To decide whether to admit this affidavit, I must consider the requirements of section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)3 to determine whether this is evidence that arose after the rejection of the claim, or was not reasonably available when the claim was rejected, or is evidence which the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to present at the time of the rejection. If I find that the evidence meets the test in section110(4), I must also, in order to admit it, determine that the evidence meets the modified factors of credibility, relevance and newness as specified in Raza4 and Singh.5 The Appellant is required to explain how the new evidence that has been provided meets the requirements of section 110(4), as is clarified in Tiodunmo.6 [9] A RAD Appeal is not de novo and is not a second chance to submit evidence to answer weaknesses identified by the RPD.7 I find this affidavit deals with matters that arose prior to the RPD rendering its decision. This affidavit attempts to supplement or to supplant the facts upon which the Appellant's claim is based. As such, the facts in the affidavit could reasonably have been provided prior to the RPD decision, and this document does not amount to new evidence which would meet the requirements of section 110(4). I do not admit this document. Since no new evidence has been admitted, the RAD will not hold an oral hearing under section 110(6) of IRPA. To the extent that this affidavit contains legal arguments relevant to the claim, I have considered them. ROLE OF THE RAD [10] In accordance with the decision in Huruglica,8 when reviewing the decision of the RPD, I have applied a standard for my review of correctness while conducting an independent assessment of the entirety of the evidence before me. ANALYSIS Inconsistencies in names used in US and Canadian claims [11] The Appellant made his Canadian claim in the name XXXX XXXX XXXX, while in his US claim, based on documents provided prior to the RPD1 hearing, the name XXXX XXXX was used. On the first day of the RPD2 hearing, the Appellant submitted a new document, a US I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, which used the same names as those appearing in his Canadian claims. The Appellant stated he had found this form amongst his documentation on the night before the RPD2 hearing, and that it had been in a separate file. He was unable to explain why the US authorities had copied the other forms he had supplied but not this one. Moreover, when asked why this was the only one of the documents for his US claim listing XXXX XXXX XXXX as his full name, the Appellant testified that he had provided the US authorities with his full names, but that there were interpreter issues. The RPD also questioned the Appellant about Somali naming conventions, and he indicated that in accordance with Somali culture, if asked for his full name, he would respond by giving XXXX XXXX XXXX as his full name. The RPD2 did not accept the Appellant's explanations because it found there were several interviews where the Appellant had given an abbreviated version of his name to the US authorities under oath in response to questions about his full name. The Appellant had also not explained how he was able to accurately provide the remainder of his information to the US authorities if there were interpreter problems. The RPD2 found it unreasonable, given the cultural context, that all the names of the Appellant would not appear in the balance of his US immigration documents. The RPD2 gave no weight to the I-589, finding that the Appellant had printed it out and completed it prior to the RPD2 hearing in an attempt to correct the differences in his names that were identified at the RPD1 hearing, and that it was not an authentic document from his US asylum claim. The RPD2 drew a negative inference against the credibility of the Appellant as well as the reliability of the documents he had provided. [12] Counsel's Memorandum submits, firstly, that the full names of the Appellant as per Somali naming traditions are "XXXX XXXX XXXX" and that we know this because the name of the Appellant's father is written on the Basis of Claim (BOC) form as "XXXX XXXX XXXX."9 [13] I agree with Counsel that as per the National Documentation Package, a Somali national's name takes on the first two names of his father (the second name taken on therefore being the name of the Somali national's grandfather).10 However, this evidence does not establish what Counsel's Memorandum states. It demonstrates only that the Appellant was consistent in the names he used when completing his Canadian immigration forms. Given that the Appellant explained that he is fully familiar with Somali naming conventions, if as the RPD2 found, his true names are not what he claims them to be, it would be only natural for him to state the names of his father in such a way as to be consistent with the personal identity he is seeking to establish. [14] Counsel also submits that the RPD2 erred when it found the I-589 is inauthentic, because the Appellant had no reason to create this document, and it is an original US form which is noticeably worn, and has staple marks on the upper left corner. [15] I respectfully disagree with Counsel's second assertion, because I find the RPD2 clearly identified in its decision that the Appellant did have a reason to create this document, which was to correct a deficiency in the names used in his Canadian and US immigration applications, which the RPD1 hearing had found impugned his credibility. Additionally, the original document is not before me and even if it were, assuming that it is in fact an original form that was submitted to the US administration (which I have no way of confirming at present), the most this evidence can establish is that the Appellant used the same name in his failed US asylum claim as in his Canadian refugee claim. The fact that the Appellant used this name in his forms does not establish that it is his real name - the refugee process itself requires him to establish that. In common with RPD2, I give this document no weight in establishing the personal identity of the Appellant, because it was created by the Appellant himself and does not emanate from a third party that could confirm his identity. [16] I find however the RPD2 is speculating when it states that the Appellant himself printed the form immediately prior to the hearing, because there is no evidentiary basis for that assertion. I therefore do not find, as the RPD2 did, that the provision of the form undermines the Appellant's general credibility and the reliability of his other supporting documents. Letter from school given no weight [17] RPD2 found in its decision that a letter from a school principal in Somalia,11 which the Appellant had presented in support of his personal identity was fraudulent because it appeared to show a stamp which was overlaid by a printed line, which was unreasonable. RPD2 found that the stamp in question had simply been printed. When questioned about this, the Appellant indicated he could not explain it because he was not there at the time the document was printed. [18] Counsel submits that RPD2's reasons for rejecting this document are inadequate, and that this is an important document which supports the Appellant's identity. Counsel submits that RPD2 erred by dismissing the document because to do so requires more than an absence of security features: it requires evidence that the document is not genuine (e.g. irregularities on the face of the document), or that it differs from a sample of a genuine document from the same source. Furthermore, Counsel quotes Zhang12 in support of the proposition that even if the stamp on the letter was printed by an inkjet printer that does not mean RPD2 can ignore its contents. [19] I have independently examined the school letter in the RPD Record. The stamp on this letter is overprinted by a solid line which runs under the printed name of the principal and over the stamp. I find that RPD2 did not err when it determined that, on a balance of probabilities, this document is not genuine. Given the appearance of this letter, there are only two possibilities. The first possibility is that the stamp was pre-printed on the letterhead of the school; subsequent to that the text of the letter, including the solid line that runs under the name of the principal, was printed on the letterhead, in this case in such a way that it ran over the pre-printed stamp. The second possibility is that the name of the principal and the image of the stamp were digitally scanned in the same scanning operation, and that the resulting scanned image was subsequently included in the letter when the text of the letter was printed together with a solid line under the principal's name running across the page and over the scanned image. Even taking into account cultural differences, because the purpose of the school's stamp is to confirm the authenticity of the document, I find it is beyond the realm of reasonable expectation that the school's letterhead would be pre-printed bearing the school's stamp, or that when the principal's name was digitized that would be done in such a way as to include the stamp of the school to the right of his name. In either case, this is indeed an irregularity on the face of the document. I agree with the RPD that, on a balance of probabilities, this document is not genuine. The case law in Zhang is distinguishable, because in that case there was no irregularity evident on the face of the document. I give this document no weight, and I agree with RPD2 that this undermines the credibility of the Appellant. Amendments to BOC do not undermine the Appellant's credibility [20] RPD2 found that the Appellant's amendments to his BOC undermined his credibility. As explained below, I disagree with this specific finding of the RPD2. The Appellant's s original BOC stated that he had stayed in Mogadishu for "a couple of months,"13 but this was amended to 20 days. When questioned, the Appellant stated he was not sure, this might have been a mistake by an immigration officer who typed it. RPD1 rejected this explanation because the Appellant's BOC was completed with the assistance of Counsel. The Appellant stated it might have been better to state "a couple of days."14 RPD2 found this to be problematic because 20 days was not a 'couple of days', and that it undermined the Appellant's credibility and the reliability of his timeline in Somalia "which undermines the evidence as to his identity."15 [21] Counsel submits that the Appellant's US documentation confirm that he stayed in Mogadishu; Counsel ascribes the need for this amendment, and an amendment to the date of the Appellant's father's death (which were identified by RPD2 as undermining the credibility of the Appellant), to errors by the Counsel who represented him at RPD1. [22] I agree with Counsel that these BOC amendments can be explained by mistakes made when the first Counsel presented the Appellant's case to RPD1 as there is evidence of that in the RPD Record. I find these issues are not central to the Appellant's claim, and therefore do not undermine the credibility of his claim. [23] With regard to the amendment of the date when the Appellant alleges he and his friend were attacked by Al-Shabaab, I find this error might be explained by Counsel errors at RPD1. RPD2 did not accept that the Appellant would make a mistake on such important matters. I find however that this amendment and other issues with dates can be explained by mistakes at the office of the original Counsel, by differences in Somali and Western emphases on the importance of dates, as well as by the use of both the Gregorian and Islamic calendars in Somalia as explained in the country conditions documents.16 [24] In summary, I do not hold these issues against the credibility of the Appellant. Appellant's notebook undermines his credibility as regards his personal identity [25] Nevertheless, as explained below, I agree with the RPD that the copy of the Appellant's notebook in the RPD Record undermines his credibility. This notebook contains a name similar to that of the Appellant (XXXX XXXX) besides the words "fake passport",17 and it also has the names and dates of birth of the Appellant and his family members in it. The Appellant claimed the name next to the words 'fake passport' was written in the notebook by a friend who shared his residence. The Appellant stated at the RPD2 hearing that this particular information is written in a different handwriting. [26] In answer to the RPD's questions, the Appellant stated that there was nothing compelling him to write his own name and his birthdate in the notebook. I reproduce below a portion of the transcript of the Appellant's testimony in this regard in the RPD2 hearing:18 MEMBER: Why is there a notation indicating the name XXXX and your birthdate? Hang on, I need a translation for what is being said, not a summary. INTERPRETER: Yeah, okay, he is ... Member, repeat the question please and I will ask him again? MEMBER: Well, can you just ell me what he has said? CLAIMANT: There was no reason for me to write such a note. It was nothing beyond writing my name and the date of birth, that is all. MEMBER: Did you understand the question? CLAIMANT: Yes, it was regard to what is written in the book, my name and my date of birth? MEMBER: Yes. So, why would you need to make a note of your own name, your own birthday and your own age? CLAIMANT: There is nothing really (inaudible) me; I cannot really recall exactly what compelled me to do that. Other than that, when we are in conversation with the people who came on the trip with me, that I just noted down the name and the date of birth maybe as part of a conversation we had. MEMBER: Have you made any new efforts to contact your family, your direct family members and get a letter from them? CLAIMANT: Yes, I did. [27] The RPD2 found the Appellant had failed to adequately explain why he had been found in possession of this notebook at the Canadian border. The RPD2 also found the Appellant had failed to adequately explain why a third person who shared his residence would make an entry in the notebook about a fake passport. [28] Counsel submits that the RPD took issue with the notebook because it found the Appellant was unable to explain why he was in possession of the notebook, but Counsel submits that the notebook is not incriminating in any manner because apart from some writing in Somali, it simply includes the names and dates of birth of the Appellant and his siblings which the Appellant could reasonably have written down because he was preparing for his Canadian refugee claim. [29] While I agree with Counsel that it is not beyond the realm of reasonable expectation that the Appellant could have wanted to record the names of his family members in order to prepare for his refugee claim in Canada, Counsel has offered no explanation as to why the Appellant would enter his own name and his birthdate in the notebook. [30] I find it is also not completely beyond the realm of reasonable expectation that someone else in the same residence would write information in the Appellant's notebook, and therefore I find that the RPD erred in holding this against the credibility of the Appellant. Nevertheless, I find that the RPD2 was correct in determining that the notebook undermines the Appellant's credibility with regard to his personal identity, owing to the vague testimony of the Appellant with regard to this notebook, and as to why he would write his own name and date of birth in it. Inability to provide documents directly from family [31] The RPD2 found at first that the Appellant's explanation as to why his family could not provide him with corroborative documents, namely that they were living in a refugee camp in Kenya and would have difficulty leaving there, to be reasonable. However, after asking further questions, the RPD2 found that the Appellant's failure to obtain a letter from his family, who he stated were living in a refugee camp in Kenya, and send it with a individual named XXXX with whom they were living and who allegedly travelled to Nairobi to send an affidavit, impugned the evidence of his identity. The Appellant explained that he thought it was sufficient for XXXX to provide an affidavit. The RPD found this was not a reasonable explanation, as it altered the Appellant's explanation as to why the family could not provide him with corroborative documents; furthermore, the Appellant had not given an explanation as to why he could not have sent the documents with XXXX. [32] Counsel has not contested this finding of the RPD on appeal. In my independent assessment, I agree that there is no evident reason why the Appellant could not have obtained corroborative evidence, even if it was only in the form of a letter from the Appellant's family, who he stated are in a refugee camp and stayed with XXXX. I therefore join with the RPD in holding this against the credibility of the Appellant regarding the establishment of his identity. Testimony of witness XXXX XXXX [33] The RPD gave the testimony of this witness little weight, finding that the witness was unable to answer many questions about the Appellant, that because the witness testified by telephone he was unable to identify the Appellant, and that the explanation of how they met each other was tenuous. The RPD notes that the Appellant had to contact the witness several times to explain who he was. Counsel concedes that another witness, XXXX XXXX XXXX, knew the Appellant much better than this witness, and that because the Appellant and XXXX XXXX had never met personally they were unable to provide specific details of each other. I agree with the RPD that the testimony of XXXX XXXX does not do much to confirm the identity of the Appellant, and I join with the RPD in giving it little weight. [34] Counsel suggests that I should give weight to the evidence of the prior witness at the RPD1, XXXX XXXX XXXX. [35] The RPD1 found that Mr. XXXX testified that he met the Appellant in Somalia in 2013 through his employer, and that he was last in Somalia in 2014. Mr. XXXX did not provide any evidence that he had been in Somalia in 2014, and despite his stating to Counsel that he would be able to provide his refugee claim documents to substantiate this, I note that these documents have still not been provided. Moreover, the RPD1 noted that all other information provided by Mr. XXXX relating to the Appellant's personal identity was provided to him by the Appellant. [36] In these circumstances, I am unable to give any weight to the testimony of Mr. XXXX as it relates to the personal identity of the Appellant, because although a presumption of truthfulness attaches to his testimony,19 and there being no evidence to the contrary, I accept that he was in Somalia in 2014, but the only other fact his testimony can establish is that the Appellant was in Somalia in XXXX, 2013. This does not establish who the Appellant is or his nationality. Failure to contact the Somali Association of Etobicoke [37] The RPD2 found it unreasonable that the Appellant had failed to contact the Somali Canadian Association of Etobicoke for assistance in contacting his siblings in Kenya, in order to obtain corroborating evidence from them. The RAD had found it was unreasonable for the RPD1 to draw a negative inference against the credibility of the Appellant for failing to contact this Association. Counsel has not opposed this finding of the RPD2. [38] The RAD noted in its decision that the Appellant's Counsel at RPD1 submitted that after the hearing they attempted to contact the Association but received no reply. [39] In these circumstances, I find that the RPD2 assessment of the issue concerned is in error, because in my view the Appellant has made reasonable efforts to contact the Association. In addition, the Appellant indicated at the RPD2 hearing that he had managed to contact these family members through his sister, and the RPD1 hearing confirms the Appellant's testimony that he spoke to his siblings on a regular basis. Limited information about details in Appellant's false passport [40] The RPD2, the RAD, and the RPD1 all found it was not credible that the Appellant claimed not to know the names that appeared in the fake Somali passport he used to leave Somalia because he had been accompanied throughout his trip and reassured that he would not be questioned. Counsel has not disputed this finding of the RPD2. In my independent assessment of this matter, I find that the Appellant has not credibly explained why he would not know the names that appeared in this passport, and I draw a negative inference against the credibility of the Appellant as a result. Letters from XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX [41] The RPD found that while the letters from the XXXX XXXX organization and XXXX XXXX XXXX lent some support for the Appellant's identity, they could be given only limited weight because the letters were largely based on information provided by the Appellant, information on Somalia that can be studied, and that language skills in the Somali language do not necessarily confirm the nationality of the Appellant because the language is spoken in several other countries. [42] Counsel does not oppose this finding of the RPD on appeal, and I again find in my independent evidence that the RPD was correct, because I find there has been little independent assessment made of whether the Appellant is Somali, and the organizations were not provided with evidence from third parties who might know the Appellant. I therefore also assign little weight to these letters. Support letters [43] The RPD2 also gave little weight to support letters from persons who met the Appellant for the first time in Central America and Canada. Counsel has again not opposed this finding of the RPD. I again agree, in my independent assessment, that little weight can be given to these letters because they are based on self-reporting by the Appellant. Affidavit of XXXX XXXX [44] Counsel submits that the RPD2 ought to have considered the affidavit of XXXX XXXX,20 which was before the RPD1. [45] I agree that the RPD2 erred by not assessing this affidavit. Although Mr. XXXX was scheduled to appear before the RPD1 Panel, he failed to attend the hearing with an explanation given that he was working and could not attend. RPD1 gave this affidavit no weight because the affidavit does not state where and when the Appellant was born and because the Panel had no opportunity to question Mr. XXXX. [46] Since this document is an affidavit, again, a presumption of truthfulness applies to it. However, in the circumstance where an affiant could reasonably have appeared before the tribunal to testify and fails to do so without giving a good reason, I find the value of the evidence is significantly reduced by the failure to appear. Additionally, I note that the Appellant had an opportunity to call Mr. XXXX to testify before the RPD2 Panel. This evidence had the potential to be of considerable significance for the Appellant's case because Mr. XXXX indicated he knew the Appellant in Somalia. Although I note the Appellant claims he thought witnesses cannot testify twice, in this instance he was assisted by Counsel who could reasonably be assumed to be aware of the value of having this evidence tested by the new Panel, especially as the RPD1 had rejected the evidence because of the failure of the witness to appear. In these circumstances, I give the affidavit only very limited weight. Affidavits submitted after RPD1 hearing [47] The RPD1, the RAD, and the RPD2 found that the affidavits submitted by the Appellant were likely fraudulent. The RAD came to this conclusion after examining the affidavits and noticing that the notarial seals on them were simply red stickers that, in the RAD's opinion, could have been purchased at any office supply store, and that the notary's stamps on these documents appear to have been laser printer. Counsel's Memorandum does not give any reasons as to why these findings of the RPD1, the RAD, and the RPD2 are incorrect. [48] Despite these findings of the panels, who had the benefit of examining the originals of these documents, while Counsel has given me no reason to assign these documents any weight and I do not do so, in fairness to the Appellant since I have been unable to examine the originals of these documents myself, I have not held them against his credibility. Lack of official documents to confirm the Appellant's Identity [49] The RPD2 acknowledges in its Reasons that the Appellant could not reasonably be expected to produce documents held by the former government of that country owing to the situation in Somalia. Counsel agrees but argues that the Appellant has made significant efforts to establish his identity. [50] I find, in view of the long-standing civil war in Somalia, and the country conditions documents which indicate that primary identification documents from the government of Somalia are unlikely to be available, that the Appellant does not possess and has not provided acceptable government documentation establishing his personal identity, but that he has a reasonable explanation for failing to do so. Lack of other credible identity documents [51] As per my analysis above, I have given the school documents provided by the Appellant little weight. Counsel submits that the US asylum claim documents supplied by the Appellant consistently list his name, his date of birth, his clan affiliation, as well as giving his place of birth as Somalia. Since, however, these documents have been supplied by the Appellant, and not by an independent individual, I give these documents little weight. Lack of other corroborating evidence of identity [52] Despite examining the evidence supplied to both the RPD1 and the RPD2, I have found little evidence that would support the personal identity of the Appellant or his membership in the XXXX clan. There is some evidence in the RPD Record suggesting that the Appellant perhaps possesses Somali nationality because he speaks the language, but I have given little weight to the letters from Community associations which indicate he is Somali, and I find overall there is insufficient credible evidence of his nationality or his clan. Failure to provide sufficient credible evidence of identity [53] Section 106 of the IRPA states that "The Refugee Protection Division must take into account, with respect to the credibility of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation."21 [54] Rule 11 of the RPD Rules22 similarly states that a claimant "must provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them." [55] In this instance, I find the Appellant has failed to provide credible evidence of his identity. He has failed to credibly explain why he failed to call a witness who was supposed to attend the RPD1 hearing, Mr. XXXX XXXX, to the RPD2 hearing, and has failed to provide supporting documentation from his family. There are also other circumstances which I have found detract from his credibility: I have found that he gave vague testimony as to why a notebook with his name and date and birth written in it was discovered at the Canadian border, and that it was unreasonable that the Appellant did not know the name in the passport he used to leave Somalia. [56] For the above reasons and, in view also of the low weight that I have ascribed to opinions provided by Community organizations, I find that regrettably the Appellant has failed to satisfactorily establish his identity. It is unnecessary for me to consider Counsel's submissions as to the risks faced by the Appellant on return to Somalia, because the Appellant's failure to establish his identity is dispositive of any claims under section 96 or section 97 of IRPA.23 DETERMINATION [57] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA,24 the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) "Ron Liberman" Ron Liberman October 1, 2020 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2 RAD Decision TB7-15027. 3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, section 110(4). 4 Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96, [2016] 4 FCR 230. 6 Tiodunmo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1489. 7 Eshetie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1036, at paras 33-34; see also Abdullahi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 260, at para. 15. 8 Huruglica v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Basis of Claim (BOC), at p. 18. 10 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somali (April 30, 2019), item 3.2: Documents in Somalia and Sudan, January 5, 2009, at para 2.2. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, School letter, at p. 443. 12 Zhang v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 444. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC, at p. 15. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Reasons and decision (RPD2), at p. 7, para. 9. 15 Ibid. 16 Supra, at endnote 10, para 2.2. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Reasons and decision (RPD1), at p. 299. 18 Transcript of RPD Hearing on August 21, 2019, at p. 15. 19 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 FC 302, 31 N.R. 34 (CA). 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Statutory Declaration of XXXX XXXX, at p. 82. 21 IRPA, section 106. 22 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, Rule 11: Documents. 23 IRPA, section 96 and 97. 24 IRPA, section 111(1)(a). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-27039 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