TB8-02088

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-02088 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision May 6, 2019 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Hart A Kaminker 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 OF THE APPEAL AND BACKGROUND [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX ("the Appellant") alleges a fear of al-Shabaab in Somalia. He alleges he was physically assaulted by members of al-Shabaab in XXXX of 2016 because they considered him an infidel for practicing Sufism. He travelled to Mogadishu where he was treated for his injuries. With the assistance of an agent, the Appellant then travelled through many countries and entered the United States in XXXX of 2016. He made an asylum claim in the United States which was ultimately denied. He entered Canada in September of 2016 and made a claim for refugee protection. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied the claim finding that the Appellant had not established his personal identity or Somali citizenship on a balance of probabilities, or that he was in Somalia during the relevant time. [3] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD made a number of errors in its decision. [4] Having found that the RPD did not err in its analysis of the evidence or in its findings, I am confirming the decision of the RPD and dismissing the appeal. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [5] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is to review decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness on questions of law, fact, and mixed fact and law, after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.1 The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment and weighing of oral testimony heard.2 Unless otherwise stated, a correctness standard has been applied. ANALYSIS Admissibility of evidence submitted on appeal [6] The Appellant tendered one item as proposed new evidence in support of his appeal. The item is a GoMaps calculation of distance between Harardhere and Mogadishu.3 [7] The Appellant submits that while his proposed new evidence would have been available at the time of his hearing, it would not have been reasonable for him to have presented it. He maintains that he could not have known that the RPD would ask a question concerning the distance between Harardhere and Mogadishu, and he could not have known a negative inference would have been drawn against him despite the fact that he gave the correct distance. He submits that his new evidence is relevant because the RPD made a negative finding from the fact that he did not provide the distance when questioned in the United States (US), despite giving a reasonable explanation as to why he did not provide that evidence. He also submits that the fact that he was correct with respect to the evidence goes to his identity as a Somali. [8] In my view, the Appellant's proposed new evidence meets the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to have provided this evidence prior to the rejection of his claim for the reasons he submits. Since it meets the test for new evidence, the GoMaps calculation document is accepted in this appeal. A further analysis of the new evidence is found below. Oral hearing [9] While the Appellant does not request an oral hearing, I have considered whether an oral hearing is warranted. My jurisdiction to convene an oral hearing is limited: there must be admissible new evidence that raises a serious issue of credibility, is central, and determinative.4 The GoMaps calculation document has been accepted as new evidence in this appeal. However, for the reasons below, it does not justify allowing the Appellant's refugee protection claim. Therefore, an oral hearing cannot be convened. Identity/credibility findings of the RPD Discrepancies in the Appellant's name [10] The RPD noted that the Appellant stated in his Basis of Claim Form (BoC), his refugee claim forms, and his US asylum claim forms that his name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, however, he also provided evidence that his name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It drew a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to explain this material discrepancy in his evidence. The RPD found that this seriously undermined the Appellant's credibility. [11] The Appellant maintains that Somali names are based upon the names of the father, grandfather, great-grandfather etc. He maintains that XXXX is his father's name, XXXX is his grandfather's name, and XXXX is his great-grandfather's name. He points out that his BoC contains his father's name which confirms his evidence regarding his name. The Appellant maintains that Somalis usually use three names rather than four. He submits that he provided a reasonable explanation as to why the name "XXXX" appeared on his school documents - there may have been other individuals in his school with the same name and XXXX was used to distinguish him. [12] In my view, the RPD was not wrong to note an inconsistency in the Appellant's evidence regarding his full name. The Appellant indicated in his BoC that his name is XXXX XXXX XXXX.5 He indicated in his Generic Application Form for Canada that his full name is XXXX XXXX XXXX and that he had never used another name.6 He indicated in his US Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal that his complete name is XXXX XXXX XXXX and that he had never used other names.7 However, his student identification card and school leaving certificate indicate that the student's name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (or XXXX).8 It is mere speculation that there may have been other individuals in the school with the same name as the Appellant, and XXXX was used to distinguish him. If the Appellant went by a different or fuller name during his schooling, he ought to have indicated that other names he went by in his refugee and asylum claim forms in Canada and the US. I find that the inconsistency undermines the Appellant's credibility and the credibility of his alleged identity. I also find that it undermines the reliability and authenticity of the student identity card and school leaving certificate. Somali birth certificate and identity card [13] The RPD noted the Appellant's allegation that he provided US immigration officials with his birth certificate and an identity card. It drew a negative inference from the Appellant's vague and evasive response to questions concerning the identity documents he alleged to have had in Somalia and to have provided to US immigration officials. The RPD found the Appellant's explanation for his lack of documents, and his lack of effort to obtain his identity documents from the US government, not reasonable. [14] The Appellant alleges no error in the RPD's findings on this issue and I see none. I attach great importance to documentation which would have supported the Appellant's identity. If the Appellant provided US immigration officials with his birth certificate and identity card as alleged, it would be reasonable to expect him to attempt to obtain them and provide them to the RPD to assist him in establishing his identity. His lack of effort in acquiring evidence to corroborate his identity further undermines his credibility and the credibility of his alleged identity. Passports used to travel [15] The RPD noted a discrepancy in the Appellant's evidence regarding the photograph and information that was in the false Somali passport he used to travel from Somalia to Ethiopia. It drew a negative inference. The RPD also noted that the Appellant was not forthcoming and was evasive when testifying about the Ethiopian passport he used to travel from Ethiopia to Dubai, en route to the US. It drew a negative inference. It found it not reasonable that the Appellant would be unsure about the specific details of the passports he used to travel. The RPD found the Appellant was not being truthful and that it undermined his credibility. [16] The Appellant makes no allegation of error in the RPD's finding regarding this issue and I see none. It would be reasonable to expect refugee claimants to provide consistent evidence and be forthcoming regarding the travel documents they used to travel to Canada. The Appellant's failure to do so further undermines his credibility and the credibility of his alleged identity. Allegations with respect to Sufi religion [17] The RPD found the Appellant's testimony concerning the principles/teachings/beliefs of Sufism not fulsome. It drew a negative credibility inference and found that the Appellant had not established on a balance of probabilities the he is nor was a genuine and practicing Sufi in Somalia. It found the Appellant's responses regarding being targeted by al-Shabaab due to his Sufi activities, while his family was not targeted, not credible. It found it reasonable to expect that if al-Shabaab had spies in the area as alleged, and if all the Appellant's family members were devout Sufis, that they would also be targeted by al-Shabaab. It drew a negative inference. [18] The Appellant alleges no errors in the RPD's finding on this issue and I see none. The Appellant's lack of knowledge and details regarding Sufism, considering his alleged practice of Sufism, and his alleged targeting by al-Shabaab due to his Sufi practice when his family members were not targeted, further undermine his credibility and the credibility of his alleged identity. Efforts to contact family [19] Letter from wife and photographs - The RPD noted that the email letter allegedly from his wife did not include a form of identification, and there was no way for it to discern who wrote it. It found the document is of insufficient probative value to establish the facts stated in it. The RPD noted that two photographs depicting a woman and two young children, alleged to be the Appellant's wife and children, are not dated, and there is nothing on the face of the photos to indicate where they were taken. The RPD found the email and photos are of insufficient value to establish the Appellant's identity on a balance of probabilities. [20] The Appellant points out that the letter has a signature with a name that corresponds to the name of his spouse. He maintains that there is nothing in the evidence to doubt that the letter writer was not in fact his spouse. He submits that the RPD made a negative determination based upon absolutely no evidence. He asks the RAD to accept his spouse's letter as credible and corroborative of his identity. [21] In my view, the email message purported to be from the Appellant's spouse,9 and the photographs, deserve no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's identity. The email message was sent through the email address of an unknown individual. No identity documents were attached to the email message to identify the author of the message or the sender. No physical address was provided for the author of the message or the sender. The message is not signed, contrary to the Appellant's assertion that it is. Considering the deficiencies, the email message lacks probative value. [22] Two photographs,10 purported to be of the Appellant's spouse and two children are of little value. They are simply photographs of a woman and two children against a nondescript backdrop. Considering their lack of probative value and the findings regarding the email above, I give no weight to the photographs with respect to establishing the Appellant's identity. [23] No letters from Appellant's mother and siblings - The RPD found that the Appellant failed to reasonably explain why he was not able to obtain a letter from his mother or siblings. It noted that there was no objective evidence provided concerning accessibility to the XXXX area where his mother and siblings live. It drew a negative inference. [24] With respect to providing a letter from his mother or siblings, the Appellant indicates that it is not the accessibility to XXXX, but whether or not these individuals would have access to ways to provide evidence to him through internet or by sending a letter through courier. He submits that contrary to the RPD's finding, there was objective evidence concerning a lack of services in many parts of Somalia, although not specifically in XXXX. He points to evidence regarding the lack of access to basic necessities and the poor basic service delivery in Somalia. He maintains that the evidence depicts a country where basic infrastructure is not available and presumably even more so in rural areas. He submits that there is no reason to believe his evidence that it was difficult, if not impossible to obtain evidence from his family residing in a rural area of Somalia. [25] It is important to note that while the Appellant was in Mexico making his way to the US, he allegedly received an email from his uncle in Somalia containing his birth certificate and identity card as attachments. It is also important to note that the Appellant alleged he received his original school documents, and photographs of his wife and children, from a Canadian woman who had travelled from Somalia to Canada. Considering that the Appellant was able to have documents sent to him from Somalia by email, and original documents transported from Somalia to Canada by an individual, the RPD was not wrong to draw a negative inference from the Appellant's lack of effort to obtain supporting documents from his mother and siblings. If the Appellant had made regular trips from his home area of Harardhere to Mogadishu, one would expect that his other family members in Harardhere would also be able to make the trip. One would also expect the Appellant's family members in Mogadishu to be able to make the trip to Harardhere. I attach great importance to documentation which would have supported the Appellant's identity, such as letters or affidavits or identity documents from his mother and siblings. His lack of effort to obtain them further undermines his credibility and the credibility of his alleged identity. [26] No letter from Appellant's uncle - The RPD noted that the Appellant's uncle in Mogadishu allegedly sent the Appellant copies of his birth certificate and identity card by email while he was in Mexico, however the Appellant did not provide a letter from his uncle to support his claim. It found the Appellant's responses not credible and that he was attempting to mislead it concerning his contact with his uncle. It drew a negative inference. [27] The Appellant makes no allegation of error in the RPD's finding on this issue and I see none. I note that the Appellant testified that his uncle in Mogadishu had his documents, including his birth certificate and a small identification card. I also note that the Appellant's uncle allegedly sent the Appellant copies of his birth certificate and identity card by email. Considering the uncle's possession of the Appellant's identity documents, one would expect the Appellant to have made an effort to obtain the original identity documents and an affidavit or letter from his uncle in an attempt to prove his identity. His responses to questions about contacting his uncle were inconsistent. When asked if he had contacted his uncle after he left the US, the Appellant said that he had not. When asked if he had made any efforts to contact his uncle after he was released in the US, the Appellant said that he had contacted his mother. When asked if he had tried to contact his uncle after he left the US, the Appellant said that he had tried on a number of occasions but was unable to speak with him due to issues with the phone. The Appellant's inconsistent evidence regarding his alleged attempts to contact his uncle to obtain corroborating evidence further undermines his credibility and the credibility of his alleged identity. Appellant's whereabouts prior to coming to Canada [28] Time spent in Mogadishu - The RPD noted the Appellant's testimony that he lived in Mogadishu from 2000 until 2006, however, according to his US asylum claim documents and his Canadian refugee claim forms, he first went to Mogadishu in 2003. The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to explain the discrepancy. The RPD also drew a negative inference from the Appellant's inability to accurately recall the distance between Yaqshid and Wardhigley, given his allegation that he travelled everywhere within Mogadishu. The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's inability to recall the distance between Harardhere and Mogadishu during his interview with US immigration officials, considering his allegation that he had travelled between the two locations often. The RPD noted that the Appellant's school documents indicate that he attended middle school between 2003 and 2006, when he was an adult at that time and was allegedly enrolled in an adult course. It found the Appellant's explanation not reasonable and drew a negative inference. The RPD found that the Appellant was trying to mislead it regarding the reason he had not attended school in Mudug. It drew a negative inference. The RPD found the Appellant's responses regarding the issuance of passports in Somalia not credible and inaccurate when considering the documentary evidence indicating that Somalia has been issuing passports since December of 2013. It drew a negative inference. [29] The Appellant maintains that he did not list residing in Mogadishu from 2000 in his refugee forms because the document asked for his personal history and address for the past 10 years, which would have been from 2006. He maintains that he provided a reasonable explanation as to why he could not provide off the top of his head the distance between Harardhere and Mogadishu to US officials - he had travelled a long distance through 18 countries and could not think clearly. Further, he submits that his new evidence shows that his answer was accurate and therefore should have gone to the credibility of his identity. With respect to attending middle school while he was 20 years old, the Appellant submits that the RPD failed to consider the fact that schooling has not been consistent in Somalia since the outbreak of the civil war and therefore failed to consider the context in which he was living in Somalia. He submits that as a result of the lack of basic services it is entirely possible that he was attending middle school even in his later years given the difficulty to access education. [30] The Appellant's explanation that he did not list residing in Mogadishu from 2000 in his refugee forms because the document asked for his personal history and address for the past 10 years does not explain why he indicated in his US asylum claim documents that he resided in Harardhere from XXXX 1982 until XXXX 2016.11 This is inconsistent with his story and it further undermines his credibility. Considering the Appellant's allegation that he travelled everywhere within Mogadishu, his inability to accurately recall the distance between Yaqshid and Wardhigley further undermines his credibility. [31] I note that during the Appellant's interview with US officials, he was asked how far Jowhar and Mogadishu are from where he lived. The Appellant indicated that he lived in Harardhere in central Somalia, and he knew Jowhar and Mogadishu were really far away.12 Not only did the Appellant allege he had travelled between Harardhere and Mogadishu often, he alleged that he had travelled between the two locations often in the recent past. In my view, the Appellant's inability to recall the distance between Harardhere and Mogadishu at his US interview - a detail that would have been subject to almost daily recall by an individual travelling that particular route on a regular basis - is not reasonably explained by his lengthy travel to the US or his unclear mind. The RPD was not wrong to find the Appellant's explanation unreasonable and to draw a negative inference. I find the Appellant's inability to recall the distance between Harardhere and Mogadishu during his interview with US immigration officials further undermines his credibility and the credibility of his alleged identity. [32] Also, the fact that the Appellant was close to his estimation of the distance between Harardhere and Mogadishu at his RPD hearing does not help him establish his identity. It is clear for the reasons above that the Appellant learned of the distance between Harardhere and Mogadishu after his US asylum interview and before his RPD hearing. This does not help him establish his identity or his allegations. [33] The Appellant's explanation regarding attending middle school as an adult is without merit. It does not adequately explain why he had to travel some 500 kilometers to attend school in Mogadishu when there were schools in his home area. Also, even if schooling has not been consistent in Somalia since the outbreak of the civil war as alleged, one would expect an identity document from an educational institution to accurately reflect the nature or level of education that the student was enrolled in. The RPD was not wrong to draw negative inferences. Having reviewed the evidence, I draw the same negative inferences. [34] The RPD was also not wrong to find the Appellant's responses regarding the issuance of passports in Somalia not credible and inaccurate when considering the documentary evidence indicating that Somalia has been issuing passports since December of 2013. I draw a negative inference, as the RPD did. Identity witness [35] The RPD noted that the witness alleged she first met the Appellant in Mogadishu in 2011, when she had travelled to Mogadishu from Kenya. It found the witness' failure to corroborate her travel to either Kenya or Somalia in 2011 seriously undermined the weight it could give her testimony concerning how and when she met the Appellant in Somalia. It found the Appellant's responses regarding why he was in Mogadishu in 2011 to be vague and that he failed to credibly explain why he was in Mogadishu in XXXX of 2011 as alleged. It drew a negative inference. The RPD found the information the Appellant and his witness knew about each other could easily have been memorized in preparation for the hearing. The RPD found the witness' testimony insufficient to establish the Appellant's identity and nationality on a balance of probabilities. [36] The Appellant maintains that he and his witness could not have anticipated the kinds of questions they would be asked during the course of the hearing, and as such the RPD's finding that the answers could have been memorized in preparation of the refugee hearing was not a basis to discount otherwise credible evidence. He asks the RAD to accept his witness' evidence as credible evidence. [37] In my view, the RPD was not wrong to find the witness' failure to corroborate her travel to Kenya or Somalia in 2011 adversely impacted the weight it could give her testimony concerning how and when she met the Appellant in Somalia. Considering that the witness is a Canadian citizen who has been in Canada for 30 years, one would expect her to be able to provide documentation of her travel to Somalia in 2011. No documentation and not even a photograph was presented to corroborate her travel to Kenya or Somalia in 2011. Also, I note that her knowledge of the Appellant was limited, and mainly learned from the Appellant himself. I find that these factors undermine the probative value of the witness' testimony. [38] Also, the RPD was not wrong to find the Appellant's responses regarding why he was in Mogadishu in 2011 (where he allegedly met the witness) to be vague and that he failed to credibly explain why he was in Mogadishu in XXXX of 2011 as alleged. The following excerpt from the hearing demonstrates this. RPD: Why were you in Mogadishu in 2011? Appellant: So I just came. Just looking. Going after life basically. I just went there. RPD: I don't understand that sir. I just came. Going. Looking. Going after life. I don't know what that means. Why were you there in 2011? Appellant: In the region I was, there was no money so what I mean by that is I just came to get some money to take money from people and just go back. So that's --- RPD: Take money from people. Okay. Do you have anything to show me that this witness was in Mogadishu in 2011? Appellant: The only thing I could say is I met her in Mogadishu. [39] The Appellant's vague testimony regarding the reason he was in Mogadishu in 2011 further undermines his credibility and undermines the credibility of his allegation that he met his witness in Mogadishu in 2011. [40] I give the evidence of the identity witness very little, if any, weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's identity. Other supporting documents [41] US asylum claim documents - Given that the information in the US asylum documents was provided to the US officials by the Appellant, who it found not credible, the RPD found the US asylum documents are insufficient to establish the Appellant's identity and citizenship on a balance of probabilities. [42] I agree with the RPD. The Appellant's US asylum claim documents deserve little, if any, weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's identity. [43] School documents - The RPD noted that the Appellant had not made any effort to obtain an affidavit from the Canadian woman who brought his school certificate and student card from Somalia to Canada. It found the Appellant's explanation for his lack of effort not reasonable. The RPD noted that the signature on the student card is different from the signature on the Appellant's refugee forms. It drew a negative inference. The RPD gave the school documents no weight in establishing the Appellant's identity. [44] The Appellant submits that the RPD unreasonably and improperly dismissed his school documents that could have been used to support his identity. [45] In my view, the RPD was not wrong to give no weight to the school documents in terms of establishing the Appellant's identity. Besides the credibility issues surrounding the Appellant's alleged attendance at a school in Mogadishu discussed above, the signature on the student card13 differs from the Appellant's signature on his refugee forms.14 The signature on the student card also differs from the Appellant's signature on his US asylum documents.15 While I accept that one's signature may change over time, and especially as one matures, the student card was allegedly signed when the Appellant was an adult, as were the asylum and refugee documents. I do not accept that the Appellant's signature changed in a dramatic fashion as alleged, and as seen in the comparison between the student card and his asylum and refugee documents. Also, the Appellant did not reasonably explain his attendance at a school in Mogadishu when there were schools in his home area. For these reasons, the school documents deserve no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's identity. [46] Photographs - The RPD noted that photographs purported to be of the Appellant's mother and siblings are not dated and there is nothing on the face of the photos to indicate where they were taken. It found that they are of insufficient probative value to establish the Appellant's identity on a balance of probabilities. [47] In my view, the photographs are of little value. One is of a man and a woman sitting next to each other in an unknown location. The other is of two men standing next to each other in an unknown location. The photographs lack probative value. I give no weight to the photographs with respect to establishing the Appellant's identity. [48] Letter from relative in the US (Ms. XXXX) - The RPD noted that the Appellant was evasive and vague when asked how Ms. XXXX is related to him. It found the Appellant's inability to explain how exactly he knows Ms. XXXX seriously undermines the information in her letter. It found the document not reliable and insufficient to establish the Appellant's identity on a balance of probabilities. [49] I agree with the RPD. The Appellant was unable to explain how Ms. XXXX was related to him. The following excerpt from the hearing demonstrates this. RPD: Okay. I just have another question. Hopefully we can just deal with it quickly. You provided a letter from somebody in the US. Who was this person? Appellant: Her name is XXXX XXXX XXXX. RPD: And who is that? Appellant: She's my relative. RPD: How is she related to you? Appellant: She's not my real paternal aunt but I consider her my paternal aunt. RPD: I don't understand what that means sir. Appellant: She's a relative of my dad. RPD: How is she related to your dad? Appellant: Their relatives. You know relatives. Relatives. MEMBER: I really don't sir. And I'm not sure why you can't tell me. They are relatives. You know relatives. Appellant: Yeah she's considered like my aunt, my paternal aunt. [50] One would expect the Appellant to know how his witness is related to him. After all, the Appellant is presenting evidence from the witness in order to establish his identity. His inability to articulate how he is related to Ms. XXXX further undermines his credibility and undermines the credibility of his allegation that Ms. XXXX is related to him. [51] I also note that the Appellant informed US immigration officials that he did not have any family, relatives, friends or acquaintances in the United States.16 However, he indicated at his hearing that he knew Ms. XXXX was in the United States before he got to the United States. I find that the inconsistency further undermines his credibility and the credibility of his allegation that Ms. XXXX is related to him. I give the letter from Ms. XXXX no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's identity. [52] Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - The RPD found that the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was not sufficient to overcome its concerns and gave it no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's personal identity and nationality. It noted apparent deficiencies in the organization's assessment methods and ability to verify the identity of an individual. [53] While I would normally assign some weight to a letter from a XXXX XXXX XXXX in support of a refugee claimant's nationality, especially when there is other credible evidence of the refugee claimant's identity, I am unable to do so in this case considering the lack of other credible evidence going towards the Appellant's personal identity and citizenship. While the organization may have some experience in assessing a person's nationality, it is not mandated to assess an individual's credibility, including credibility as it relates to multiple aspects of an individual's identity, as the RPD is. The Appellant and his evidence have been found to lack credibility and this extends to the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [54] Although the letter provides a brief statement on how the organization assesses a client, it fails to provide an adequate explanation on how it can determine that one of their clients is who he says he is and that the person is a citizen of a certain country. Without identity documents for the client or without verifying the client's identity with credible evidence, it cannot say with certainty that a client is who he says he is or that he is a citizen of Somalia or any other country. There is no indication that the organization had obtained credible evidence of the Appellant's personal identity or citizenship. If it had obtained such credible evidence, one would expect the author to have referred to this evidence in his letter. [55] Furthermore, the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX indicates that the Appellant attested that he was born in the district city of Harardhere, central region of Mudug, Somalia and belongs to the minority XXXX clan from Somali clan structure.17 It merely reiterates what the Appellant told them about his place of birth and his clan. There is no indication that the organization assessed these aspects of the Appellant's identity. The author fails to assess or make a determination or offer an opinion on these aspects of the Appellant's identity. The letter is deficient in many respects. I therefore assign no weight to the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in terms of establishing the Appellant's personal identity, citizenship, clan membership, or place of origin. Testimony in the Somali language [56] The RPD found that the Appellant's ability to testify in the Somali language is insufficient to establish his personal and national identity on a balance of probabilities. It noted that the Somali language is spoken in many other countries around the world, including Ethiopia and Kenya. It found that the Appellant's proficiency in the Somali language does not establish that he was actually born or lived in Somalia for any period of time or that he is a citizen of Somalia. It indicated that while the Appellant may be ethnically Somali, it does not preclude him from having obtained another nationality at some point. The RPD found that the Appellant has not established with reliable and trustworthy evidence who he is or where he is from. [57] I considered the fact that the Appellant testified in the Somali language. The ability to speak a language does not establish a person's personal identity, nor can it establish a person's citizenship. This is especially relevant for individuals who speak Somali given that this language is spoken in Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya, and Ethiopia. I therefore give the Appellant's ability to speak and understand the Somali language little weight in establishing his identity. [58] The same can be said of the Appellant's knowledge of the geography and politics of Somalia. Information regarding the geography and politics of a country such as Somalia is widely available and access to this information is not restricted to citizens of Somalia. Knowledge of a country's geography and politics does not establish a person's personal identity, nor can it establish a person's citizenship. Therefore, I give the Appellant's knowledge of the geography and politics of Somalia little weight in establishing his identity. Summary [59] The Appellant provided no credible identity documents to establish his identity. It was acceptable for the RPD to expect the Appellant to attempt to obtain his birth certificate from the United States government or from his uncle in Somalia, but he made little or no effort to do so. He called an identity witness at the RPD, but his witness did not corroborate her travel to Somalia during the period she allegedly met the Appellant, and the Appellant could not reasonably explain why he was in Mogadishu during the time he allegedly met the witness. The letters and other documents he provided were deficient and lacked probative value. His evidence regarding his identity and his other allegations contained numerous anomalies. It was not wrong for the RPD to find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant had failed to establish his identity. Having reviewed the evidence, I find the same. [60] As he has not established his identity, neither the Appellant's refugee claim, nor this appeal can succeed. CONCLUSION [61] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella May 6, 2019 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para 103. 2 Ibid., paras. 69-74. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 110. 4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 110(6). 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 23, sections 1a) and 1b). 6 Ibid., at p. 43, sections 1 and 2. 7 Ibid., at p. 122, I-589 Form, Part A.I., section 3, 4, 5, and 6. 8 Ibid., at pp. 83, 90. 9 Ibid., at pp. 88-89. 10 Ibid., at pp. 84-85. 11 Ibid., at p. 125, Part A.III.,section 2. 12 Ibid., at p. 115. 13 Ibid., at p. 83. 14 Ibid., at pp. 31, 50, 58, 70, 71, 72, 74. 15 Ibid., at pp. 106, 119, 136. 16 Ibid., at p. 103. 17 Ibid., at p. 92. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-02088 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2018) 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