TB8-07541

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-07541 TB8-07542 / TB8-07543 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date(s) of Hearing December 5, 2018 Date(s) de l'audience July 10, 2019 Date(s) de l'audience Date of decision September 18, 2019 Date de la décision Panel T. Cheung Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Tina Hlimi (Law Office -Tina Hlimi) Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (collectively the Appellants) are citizens of Somalia who appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated February 22, 2018, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is the mother of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the minor Appellants). The Appellants' claims [2] The Appellants were born in XXXX in the southern region of Middle Juba, Somalia, and are members of the XXXX clan. The Appellant claimed that her first husband was attacked and killed by Al-Shabaab in 2014. The Appellant remarried in 2016. In XXXX 2017, Al-Shabaab men came to her house and attempted to kidnap the one of the Appellant's four daughters. Although the daughter was able to resist the attempted kidnapping, she was taken by force several weeks later. During the second attempted kidnapping, the Appellant was tied up while the daughters witnessed one of their sisters being forcefully taken away. Several months later, the Appellant and her three remaining daughters fled to Ethiopia. From Ethiopia, the Appellants traveled to Canada to claim refugee status, leaving behind one of the daughters in Ethiopia because they could not afford her passage. The Appellant learned that her second husband has since been detained by Al-Shabaab.1 The RPD's decision [3] The RPD gave three main reasons for rejecting their claims: the Appellants had not established their identities because the Appellant presented a Somali passport that was likely fraudulent; the Appellant's narrative about Al-Shabaab lacked credibility; and since the Appellants had not established their identities, the RPD member did not accept the claim that the minor claimants were at risk of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).2 ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION (RAD) [4] The applicable standard of review on questions of law, fact or mixed fact and law is correctness,3 except where the RPD has a meaningful advantage in assessing credibility, in which case the standard of review is reasonableness.4 The RAD determines whether the RPD truly benefitted from a meaningful advantage before applying the standard of reasonableness in its review of a finding. Unless otherwise stated, the standard of review of this RPD decision is correctness. The RAD carries out its own independent assessment of the record on a correctness standard to determine whether the RPD erred in its overall determination of the claim. ADMISSION OF NEW EVIDENCE [5] The Appellant requested new evidence consisting of her affidavit to be admitted for consideration at the RAD. I admit into evidence paragraphs 29 to 37 of the new affidavit which address the Somali passport, and the questions and answers that were exchanged about the passport at the RPD hearing and post-hearing. [6] In order for new evidence to be admissible at the RAD, it must meet the criteria of section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) which provides that "the person who is 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 rejection."5 The evidence must also be credible, relevant and new, pursuant to the jurisprudence in Singh and Raza.6 [7] The new evidence in paragraphs 29 to 37 of the new affidavit evidence could not reasonably have been expected to be presented because the RPD member did not ask questions at the RPD hearing or post-hearing about how the Appellant could have afforded to pay for the Somali passport, given the male head of the family was a farmer. Post-hearing, the RPD member wrote to the Appellants requesting affidavit evidence to explain why the Appellant obtained a passport in 2004.7 The Appellant provided an affidavit stating she had malaria and her doctors advised her to seek treatment abroad because they could not treat her adequately.8 Without resuming the RPD hearing to question the Appellant on her affidavit, the RPD member erroneously speculated that she could not have afforded a Somali passport because her husband was a farmer. The new affidavit evidence submitted to the RAD addresses how the RPD's finding is speculative and therefore an error. [8] Turning to the assessment of the new evidence for credibility, relevance and newness, as required by Singh and Raza,9 I find paragraphs 29 to 37 of the affidavit to be credible, relevant and new. Paragraphs 29 to 37 of the affidavit states that the Appellant's husband's farm was doing well which enabled him to pay for the passport.10 This new evidence may reverse the RPD's finding that the passport may be fraudulent. This new evidence is relevant to the Appellant's identity and credibility. The new evidence is credible because the presumption of truth has not been rebutted given the RAD's prima facie review of the evidence. [9] The remainder of the paragraphs in the affidavit is not new evidence because it contains arguments pertaining to testimony already given at the RPD. As such, I do not admit the remainder of the affidavit. Hearing pursuant to section 110(6) of IRPA [10] The RAD may hold a hearing pursuant to section 110(6) of IRPA if the new documentary evidence in the appeal that was not presented to the RPD raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; and if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee claim. [11] The criteria in section 110(6) of IRPA are present to justify holding a RAD hearing. Firstly, the Appellant's affidavit raises two serious issues with respect to credibility: * If the Appellant's health had deteriorated and she was desperate for medical treatment, as stated in her affidavit, how could she and her four young children at the time travel from XXXX to Mogadishu which is several hours away to obtain the passport? * The implicit assumption in the Appellant's evidence is that she was in Somalia in 2004 when the passport was issued to her from the government office in Mogadishu. This has not been proven given the country evidence that Somalia has not had a functioning central government since January 1991, and during and after the 1990s, Somali embassies issued passports for sale to Somalis residing abroad.11 [12] The new affidavit evidence is central to the refugee claim as it relates to the Appellants' identity and subjective fear of persecution. If the Appellant's explanation for the passport obtained in Somalia in 2004 is credible, then the Appellants' identities have been established on a balance of probabilities. If the Appellants were not in Somalia in 2004 when the passport was issued, the persecutory acts alleged to have occurred in Somalia between 2014 and 2017 would not have occurred as the Appellants were not likely in Somalia. Such an adverse credibility finding could impugn the other evidence, including her profile as a XXXX minority. [13] The new affidavit evidence could justify allowing the appeal, as the new evidence supports the Appellants' identities and rehabilitates her credibility, which the RPD determined to be adverse to the claims. ANALYSIS Identity of the Appellants [14] The RPD determined the passport is likely fraudulent on the sole basis that "there has been virtually no government infrastructure since approximately 1991" and "government-issued documents are inaccessible to most citizens largely due to the associated costs". The RPD's suspicions concerning the passport were focused on three points found in the National Documentation Package (NDP) evidence: there has been no government infrastructure since 1991; government issued documents are inaccessible to most citizens due to their cost; the availability of fraudulent documents calls into question the legitimacy of the passport. The RPD found the Appellant's background in farming renders it unlikely that she would have the financial resources or influence to obtain a legitimate Somali passport in Mogadishu in 2004.12 [15] The original passport was provided to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) when the Appellants made their refugee claim. The RPD member had a copy of the passport at the RPD hearing.13 At the RPD hearing, the Appellant testified that she attained the 2004 Somali passport from the Somali government in Mogadishu. She spoke Somali and told the passport office the region where she is from, but she did not have to present any documents to obtain this passport.14 [16] It is a breach of natural justice that the RPD member did not ask any questions at the RPD hearing or after the hearing to assuage the suspicion that the passport is fraudulent. Underlying the duty of procedural fairness is "the notion that the purpose of the participatory rights contained within the duty of procedural fairness is to ensure that administrative decisions are made using a fair and open procedure, appropriate to the decision being made and its statutory, institutional, and social context, with an opportunity for those affected by the decision to put forward their views and evidence fully and have them considered by the decision-makers."15 [17] After the RPD hearing, the RPD member asked the Appellant to present affidavit evidence to explain why she obtained the passport in 2004. The RPD letter requesting further evidence does not raise any credibility concerns for the Appellants to address.16 In response, the Appellant filed an affidavit explaining that she obtained the passport because she developed malaria, and her doctors could not provide adequate treatment in Somalia, so they advised her to seek treatment in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), India or Kenya.17 As the Appellant was not questioned by the RPD on her affidavit, she was not given the opportunity to explain, as she did in the new affidavit evidence, that she was desperate for medical treatment because her health had deteriorated, and the cost of the passport was not the main concern for her husband, whose farm was doing well and who gave her the money for the passport.18 [18] Although the new evidence addresses the RPD's concern about the inability to afford the passport, the assumption in the new evidence is that the Appellants were residing in Somalia in 2004 when the passport was issued. This assumption has not been proven in light of the NDP evidence that during and after the 1990s, Somali embassies issued passports for sale to Somalis residing abroad.19 As such, a RAD hearing was convened pursuant to section 110(6) of IRPA. Testimony at the RAD hearing [19] The Appellant and her daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX, testified at the RAD hearing. The Appellant gave credible testimony that supported the assertion that the Appellants were in Somalia in 2004 when the passport was issued in Mogadishu. Her testimony was detailed and substantially consistent with the affidavit evidence that she obtained the passport because she wanted to go abroad for medical treatment because the treatment in Somalia was ineffective. [20] Notwithstanding the credible testimony, for the reasons given below, I find the evidence does not support a finding that the passport is legitimate and conclusive of the identities of the Appellants. The objective country conditions evidence indicates that the passport may be fraudulent. Therefore, the passport has no probative value of the Appellants' identity. [21] Rather, it is the Appellant's testimony at the RAD hearing that provides evidence on a balance of probabilities that the Appellants were in Somalia when the passport was obtained in 2004. The Appellant testified at the RAD hearing that she traveled to Mogadishu in 2004 with her husband and four children, between one and five years old, to seek medical treatment for malaria. The Appellant gave detailed testimony that they travelled from XXXX to Mogadishu by a hired vehicle and driver. Although the distance between the two cities would normally take six to seven hours by car, the family took one day and one night to reach Mogadishu because they had to stop on account of her illness, and they had to ask other drivers whether it was dangerous to travel in that direction. They stayed overnight with a family in a small village named XXXX; the driver knew the family where they stayed. [22] The Appellant stayed in Mogadishu for one and a half months in a neighborhood called XXXX with her former sister-in-law. It was suspected that she had a condition other than malaria after treatment by three physicians failed to remedy her illness. One of the physicians suggested that she go abroad for medical treatment, which prompted her to obtain a passport. [23] The Appellant testified that she, along with her husband and four children, attended at the government offices in Area 4 of Mogadishu. The Appellant did not have to show any identification documents to obtain the passport. Her husband brought a friend, XXXX XXXX, who vouched for the identities of the Appellant and her husband, and that they are a married couple. The Appellant testified that the fee for the passport was $100USD which they considered to be a hefty expense. But her husband came up with the money because her health was deteriorating. The Appellant did not know her husband's approximate income because it depended on how much he sold every month, and she was not privy to such information as she was the homemaker. [24] The Appellant testified she never used the passport to travel abroad because her husband was unable to raise money from the sale of the farm to pay for the trip and the medical treatment abroad. After returning to XXXX, the Appellant sought treatment from an herbalist. After a year of running its course, she recovered from the illness. [25] According to the country condition evidence, Somalia has not had a functioning central government since January 1991, and large parts of the country are not governing or are under no central administration. Somali inhabitants have been unable to obtain official documents such as passports for the past 17 years.20 I asked the Appellant if she has ever lived abroad. In response, the Appellant testified that she had lived in XXXX all of her life, and she had never travelled outside of Somalia except to flee to Ethiopia where she stayed for several months before travelling to Canada for refugee protection. [26] I asked the Appellant to respond to the objective country evidence that the passport could have been issued by a Somali embassy abroad. She testified that Somali passports were being issued in Mogadishu under the administration of the interim transitional government that was in power in 2004. She also testified that she knew of Somalis who, at the time, used their Somali passports to travel to the UAE. [27] Both minor Appellants were present at the RAD hearing to support their mother's testimony. The testimony of XXXX XXXX XXXX identified her mother, father and her siblings by name. Her testimony was brief and limited to identifying the other Appellants as her mother and sister. Hence, the probative value of Ms. XXXX testimony is limited to confirming the mother-daughter relationship of the Appellants. Post-RAD hearing submissions [28] The Appellants submitted post-RAD hearing country evidence which confirm that after 2000, the Transitional Federal Government indirectly registered people by issuing identity cards and passports.21 The country documents speak of some countries not recognizing Somali passports due to widespread forgery. The transitional government took steps to rectify this by establishing a new passport office in Mogadishu to issue passports with a dry seal to prevent forgery and duplication.22 To acquire a passport, a person needed to submit a birth certificate and a certificate of good conduct with their application to the immigration office.23 The Transitional Federal Government later banned the old Somali passport, described as the "green passport", when it was replaced with a new electronic passport.24 [29] In light of the objective country evidence, I can confirm that the Appellant's passport is green; however, it is unclear from an examination of the original passport, whether a dry seal exists as an indicia that the passport was issued in the passport office in Mogadishu. Moreover, the Appellant testified that she did not show any identification documents to obtain the passport. She only had her husband's friend vouch for her identity and marital status. [30] The country documents in the Appellants' post-RAD hearing submissions indicate that Somali documents, including passports, can be easily obtained in Somalia and other countries in that region through unofficial channels; and that such documentation is often on sale in open markets. Little weight can be attached to any Somali document and should not be accepted as sole proof of identity or nationality.25 Based on the objective country evidence, I find the Appellant's green passport is not probative of the Appellants' identities. [31] Notwithstanding that the Appellant's passport does not prove her identity, I find the Appellant has demonstrated, through her testimony at the RAD that the Appellants were likely in Somalia in 2004 when she obtained the passport, irrespective of whether or not the passport was obtained at the passport office set up in Mogadishu by the Transitional Federal Government. [32] Having considered the new evidence and the testimonies at the RAD hearing, I find the presumption of truth for sworn testimony prevails as the Appellant is a credible witness overall on the issues of her presence in Somalia at the time she obtained the passport and the death of her first husband. Testimony of the identity witness, XXXX XXXX [33] At the RPD hearing, the Appellant presented XXXX XXXX as the identity witness. The Appellant argued that the RPD member pre-judged the case by signalling that identity was a live issue at the RPD hearing but did not ask any questions of the identity witness.26 [34] The Appellant and Mr. XXXX first met in Somalia. They encountered each other again in Canada at a Somali resturant called "XXXX" in XXXX 2017 where Mr. XXXX was attending a wedding and the Appellants were patrons. The restaurant named in the testimonies is phonetically similar to the name "XXXX" given in Mr. XXXX affidavit.27 [35] The RPD determined that Mr. XXXX testimony is not probative of identity because such a random meeting in Toronto is "miniscule beyond the point of plausibility."28 The RPD committed an error in not providing an explanation why this is a clear case of an implausibility. An adverse credibility finding may be drawn from an implausibility finding, only in the clearest of cases, if the facts, as presented, are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant.29 [36] Since the place of the encounter between the Appellant and Mr. XXXX is part of the Somali-Canadian community, it is not a clear case of an implausibility that is outside the realm of possibility for the Appellant and Mr. XXXX to have encountered each other at a Somali restaurant in Toronto. [37] Based on the RAD's independent review of the oral evidence, I find both the Appellant and Mr. Said gave consistent testimony that they first met in Somalia in 2006. Mr. XXXX was a school mate of the Appellant's nephew, and Mr. XXXX would visit the nephew's house, where he met the Appellant and her four children who were also visiting her sister's house for several days.30 [38] Having independently reveiwed the oral evidence, I find Mr. XXXX testimony to be credible. He knew details, such as the name of his school-mate's mother; the reason for the Appellants' visit to the house was to avoid political conflict in their hometown; and his school-mate's clan membership. Mr. XXXX testimony was spontaneous and uncontrived. He did not embellish his testimony for questions which he did not know the answers.31 I assign positive weight to Mr. XXXX testimony as proof of the Appellant's identity. Letter from XXXX XXXX [39] The letter from XXXX XXXX states that the Appellant attested she is from XXXX, and she belongs to the minority XXXX clan.32 The RPD held that if the XXXX XXXX letter is to be given any substantial weight, there has to be more evidence about how XXXX XXXX scrutinized the claimant and decided she was genuinely from Somalia.33 [40] The conclusion of XXXX XXXX that the Appellant is a Somali citizen was based on a rigorous community verification assessment that included a questionnaire written in Somali script and an oral interview using the Somali mother tongue, conducted by a professional Somali settlement counsellor. The oral interview using the Somali language tests the claimant's knowledge of Somalia's history, heritage, geography, social-political matters, clan lineage and culture. [41] The Federal Court of Canada has recognized the Somali law of citizenship that "any person who by origin, language or tradition belongs to the Somali Nation, shall be considered a 'Somali.'"34 Although being a Somali citizen does not preclude the possibility that the person could also have acquired citizenship in another country, the evidence in this appeal does not point to such a possibility. [42] While it is open for the RPD to assign less weight to the self-reported statement that the Appellant is from XXXX and is a XXXX minority, it is an error to reject the XXXX XXXX letter altogether by ignoring the verification process that includes a written and oral interview for finding the Appellant is a Somali citizen. Therefore, I assign positive weight to the XXXX XXXX letter, as it has probative value of whether the Appellant would be recognized as a Somali by virtue of her origin, language or tradition, in accordance with the Somali law of citizen. Conclusion on the Appellants' identity [43] Section 106 of IRPA states that the RPD must take into account, with respect to the credibility of the 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 documentation. Rule 11 of the RPD Rules states that a claimant who does not provide acceptable documents to establish their identity and other elements of the claim, must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain such documents. These provisions in IRPA and the RPD Rules recognize the inherent difficulty in obtaining the usual identity documents from countries without a stable civil administration, such as Somalia. Hence, claimants from such countries ought to be allowed other means to prove their national identity.35 [44] In the face of the inability to provide the usual identity documents from Somalia, I assign weight to the oral testimonies of the Appellants and Mr. XXXX, the Somali law of citizenship, and the XXXX XXXX letter, as prove of identity. I am satisfied that the Appellants have met their burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, in proving their identities. The Appellants' forward facing fear of persecution [45] Having independently assessed the evidence, I accept the Appellant's detailed testimony at the RPD hearing of the persecutory events she experienced in Somalia in XXXX 2017. Shortly after the death of her first husband in 2014, she remarried to her second husband to receive his support.36 In XXXX 2017, Al-Shabaab sought out the Appellant's daughter, XXXX, to take for a forced marriage. XXXX managed to resist being taken by force, and the Al-Shabaab left, only to return two weeks later to attempt another kidnapping. The kidnapping was carried out. The Appellant did not know why the perpetrators would leave after the first attempted kidnapping.37 [46] The Appellant testified in detail how the perpetrators tied her wrists at her back, and her daughters were beaten with the back of a gun. The Appellant was unsure in her response when the RPD member asked for clarification as to whether she was tied with a rope or a chain as alleged in the BOC, because she could not see her hands tied at her back.38 [47] The Appellant testified at the RPD that travelers warned the Appellant that Al-Shabaab would return to kidnap the other daughters.39 The Appellants could not immediately flee XXXX after the kidnapping in XXXX 2017 because Al-Shabaab was in control of the town, and she was afraid to leave her home. Several months later in XXXX 2017, there was an opportunity to flee, as Al-Shabaab had lessened their control of the town.40 [48] The Appellant could only take her youngest two daughters to escape Somalia. She left her daughter, XXXX, behind in Ethiopia because she could not afford the agent's fee and travel costs of all the children. The agent only had passports for the two younger girls and a woman, and she would need to pay more if she wanted a passport for XXXX.41 [49] Having independently reviewed the Appellant's testimony, I find she gave a credible account of the persecutory events that would be the basis of a subjective fear of persecution if the Appellants return to Somalia. [50] The Appellant testified that she is a member of the XXXX minority clan. The XXXX clan is in alliance with the Digil-Mirifle clan that is a target of the Hawiye clan.42 The testimony is consistent with the recent country conditions evidence which document the suppression of the Digil groups by the Hawiye clan due to the civil war, notwithstanding that the Digil clan is not a minority group. 43 [51] The Appellant is a single Somali female with two minor children. Since her first husband was killed and her second husband is detained by Al-Shabaab, the Appellants will be without the protection of a male family member, if they return to Somalia. The unequal status of women in Somali society renders the Appellants vulnerable to gender-based violence in Somalia.44 [52] Given the foregoing testimony about the Appellant's subjective fear, their status as women without male protection, and the objective country conditions evidence, I find the Appellants have a forward facing fear of persecution if they return to Somalia. Lack of internal flight alternative (IFA) and state protection [53] The country conditions evidence for Somalia does not support an IFA or state protection because of the ongoing armed conflict and insecurity in Somalia.45 Somalia has a very limited ability to enforce law and order. Somali citizens remain vulnerable to political violence and armed conflict, due to the state's limited ability to provide basic security to its citizens.46 There is little accountability in Somalia for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law caused by multi-faceted armed conflict.47 The state is ineffective at protecting civilians whose lives are at risk and who are forced to flee.48 [54] Puntland has provided little protection to minorities whether they are long-established in the region or internally displaced people from southern Somalia.49 The situation of minority groups in south-central Somalia has been described as "despair and hopelessness" as they live under constant mistreatment by so-called majority clans. A large part of south-central Somalia is controlled by Al-Shabaab, with the exception of a few parts of Mogadishu.50 Security is extremely volatile in Mogadishu despite the capital being controlled by the Somali Federal Government. Mogadishu has been subject to violent attacks; targeted killings on a daily basis have been reported. Such attacks have occurred in Villa Somalia, the seat of the Somali government.51 The UN Report of the Secretary-General on Somalia52 and the recent Amnesty International Annual Report 2017/2018 documented the intensification of attacks on civilians in Mogadishu by Al-Shabaab. The most recent report cited the most serious attack took place at a hotel in Mogadishu which killed over 512 people.53 [55] The Appellants' status as women puts them at risk if they return to another part of Somalia. Women in Somalia, especially those in internally displaced persons camps, are at risk of gender-based violence and domestic violence. Crimes against women are often perpetrated with impunity, especially against members of minority groups. Women make up a significant proportion of Mogadishu's displaced population and they often experience sexual abuse by both regular soldiers and irregular militia.54 CONCLUSION [56] It was an error of the RPD not to question the identity witness, if identity remained a contentious issue. The RPD's reasoning that the Appellant's family background in farming would not give her the resources or influence to obtain a legitimate Somali passport in Mogadishu in 2004 led to the negative credibility finding over the Appellants' identity.55 [57] In the independent review of the evidence presented at the RPD and the RAD, I find the presumption of truth of the sworn testimonies has not been rebutted. As such, the Appellants have proven their identity as Somali citizens on the basis of the testimonies and documentary evidence. As the testimonies are presumed true, the Appellants have also satisfied the burden of proof that they face a fear of persecution upon return to Somalia. The objective country evidence suggests no IFA or adequate state protection. [58] The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the IRPA, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees. (signed) "T. Cheung" T. Cheung September 18, 2019 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, pp. 36 to 38, Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Record, pp. 3 to 11, RPD Reasons and Decision, para. 7. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). 4 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 5 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 110(4). 6 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014, 2014 FC 1022, at para. 51; Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7269-05), Mosley, November 16, 2006, 2006 FC 1385; Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385, as cited in Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96, at para. 64. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 74, IRB fax dated February 2, 2018. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 72, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX sworn February 7, 2018. 9 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014, 2014 FC 1022, at para. 51; Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7269-05), Mosley, November 16, 2006, 2006 FC 1385; Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385, as cited in Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96, at para. 64. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, pp. 21 to 22, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX sworn April 20, 2018. 11 Archive - Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Somalia, 31 May 2017, tab 3.2: Documents in Somalia and Sudan. Norway. Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo. 5 January 2009, paragraph 2.8. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, para. 27 to 28. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 21, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX sworn April 20, 2018, para. 28. 14 Audio of RPD testimony, 1:14. 15 Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), para. 22. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 74, IRB fax dated February 2, 2018. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 72, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX sworn February 7, 2018. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 22, Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX sworn April 20, 2018, para. 35. 19 -Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Somalia, 31 May 2017, item 3.2: Documents in Somalia and Sudan. Norway. Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo. 5 January 2009, paragraph 2.8. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Somalia, 31 May 2017, item 3.2: Documents in Somalia and Sudan. Norway. Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo. 5 January 2009, paragraphs 2 and 2.8. 21 Exhibit P-3, Post-RAD hearing submissions (July 10, 2019); National Documentation Package, Somalia, 30 April 2019, item 3.18: Toward a Somali Identification System: ID4D Diagnostic. World Bank Group. 2016. 22 Exhibit P-3, Post-RAD hearing submissions (July 10, 2019); Somalia: Identity documents and travel documents (Januaury 2000 - June 2004); SOM42806.E. 23 Exhibit P-3, Post-RAD hearing submissions (July 10, 2019); National Documentation Package, Somalia, 30 April 2019, tab 3.18: Toward a Somali Identification System: ID4D Diagnostic. World Bank Group. 2016. 24 Exhibit P-3, Post-RAD hearing submissions (July 10, 2019); SOM104445.E. 25 Exhibit P-3, Post-RAD hearing submissions (July 10, 2019); Somalia: Identity documents and travel documents (Januaury 2000 - June 2004); SOM42806.E 26 Audio of RPD testimony, 1:40 - 1:54. 27 Audio of RPD testimony, 1:47 to 1:57; 2:13 to 2:17; Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 79, Affidavit sworn January 22, 2018. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 9, RPD Decision and Reasons, para. 29. 29 Valtchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1131, at para. 7. 30 Audio of RPD testimony, 1:47 to 1:57. 31 Audio of RPD testimony, 2:04 to 2:13. 32 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, p. 86, XXXX XXXX letter. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, p. 9, para. 30. 34 Warsame v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 920 (CanLII), para. 478 to 48; Husian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 462 (CanLII), para. 21 to 24; Ibrahim at paras 14-15; Nur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 636 (CanLII) at para 30). 35 Shafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), [2006] 1 F.C.R. 129; Elmi, Sahra Shukri v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4956-07), Teitelbaum, June 24, 2008, 2008 FC 773, para. 24 and 25. 36 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:26:25 to 00:30. 37 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:37 to 00:39. 38 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:52 to 00:56. 39 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:58 to 1:06. 40 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:41 to 00:46. 41 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:09 to 1:12. 42 Transcript of RPD Testimony, pp. 21 to 22. 43 NDP, Somalia, 30 April 2019, item 13.10, Clans in Somalia. Report on a Lecture by Joakim Gundel, COI Workshop Vienna, 15 May 2009 (Revised Edition) published December 2009. 44 NDP, Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.18, United Kingdom. Home Office (June 2017), para. 7. 45 NDP, Somalia, 29 March 2019, item 1.6. Somalia. 2019 Humanitarian Needs Overview. United Nations. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. November 2018. 46 NDP, Somalia, 29 March 2019, item 1.7. Situation in South and Central Somalia (including Mogadishu). Asylum Research Consultancy. 25th January 2018, p. 86. 47 NDP, Somalia, 29 March 2019, item 1.6. Somalia. 2019 Humanitarian Needs Overview. United Nations. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. November 2018. 48 NDP, Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.4, Report of the Secretary-General on Somalia. S/2017/1109, United Nations. Security Council. 26 December 2017, pp. 2 to 3 and Item 1.6, United Nations. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. November 2017. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (31 May 2017), Item 13.1, No redress: Somalia's forgotten minorities. Minority Rights Group International. November 2010, p. 19. 50 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (31 May 2017), Item 13.1, Minority Rights Group International. November 2010, p. 21. 51 NDP, Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.10, International Protection Considerations with Regard to People Fleeing Southern and Central Somalia. HCR/PC/SOM/14/01, United Nations. High Commissioner for Refugees. January 2014. 52 NDP,Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.4, Report of the Secretary-General on Somalia. S/2017/1109, United Nations. Security Council. 26 December 2017. 53 NDP, Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 2.2, Somalia. Amnesty International Report 2017/2018: The State of the World's Human Rights. Amnesty International. 22 February 2018. 54 NDP,Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.18, United Kingdom. Home Office (June 2017), para. 7. 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 3 to 11, RPD Reasons and Decision, para. 27. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-07541 TB8-07542 / TB8-07543 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 18 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français