TB8-17378

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR: TB8-17378 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 June 10, 2020 Date de la décision Panel J. Pollock Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Tina Hlimi (Law Office -Tina Hlimi) 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) alleges that she is a citizen of Somalia and of no other country. She alleges a fear of forced marriage by al-Shabaab upon return to Somalia. She appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), rejecting her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its finding that she failed to credibly establish her personal and national identity. [2] My role is to look at all of the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 Having independently assessed the evidence, including the RPD hearing audio-recording, I find that the RPD erred. The majority of its adverse findings are based on a misapprehension of the evidence. I find that the Appellant has credibly established her personal and national identity on a balance of probabilities. I further find that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. It is not necessary for me to come to a determination about the admissibility of the Appellant's proposed new evidence, regarding her delivery by caesarean section in Canada. I find that the Record before the RPD is sufficient for me to grant Convention refugee status. DECISION [3] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. BACKGROUND The Appellant's allegations [4] The Appellant alleges that she was born on XXXX XXXX XXXX 1994, after the outbreak of the Somali civil war, and that as a result she does not have any identity documents. She alleges that she is a member of the minority XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In 2009, when she was fifteen years-old, she alleges that an al-Shabaab militant attempted to force her into marriage. Her step-father, who was later revealed to be a member of al-Shabaab, was supportive of the marriage. However, the Appellant's mother opposed the marriage and managed to secretly relocate the Appellant to Mogadishu. [5] In 2010, the Appellant alleges that she fled Somalia at the age of sixteen with the help of an agent on an irregularly obtained travel document. The smuggler assisted her in her travel to Ukraine, where he advised her not to claim asylum until she had successfully reached Sweden. However, the Appellant, still a minor, was detained in Ukraine for a lack of identity documents. She alleges that she was detained on two occasions for a total of two years. Upon her final release from detention, she alleges that she was advised that she was given seven days to leave the country. As a result, she fled to Sweden with a group of other undocumented Somalis. When the Appellant arrived in Sweden she requested asylum. However, her application and subsequent appeals - all without counsel - were denied. While in Sweden, the Appellant alleges that she married an undocumented Somali man and that this traditional marriage took place by proxy in Somalia. In 2017 the Appellant became pregnant. Thereafter, she alleges that her husband was deported from Sweden to Somalia and that they are no longer in contact. [6] In 2018, the Appellant alleges that she obtained the assistance of an agent to travel to Canada on a Danish passport belonging to another person. Upon her arrival to Canada in XXXX 2018, the Appellant was confronted by a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) agent. Eventually, the Appellant conceded that the Danish passport did not belong to her and she initiated her refugee claim at the Port of Entry (POE). Despite being six-months pregnant, the Appellant was placed in immigration detention. She was released from detention in May 2018. [7] The Appellant alleges that Al-Shabaab remains interested in her even after she fled Somalia, as they have visited her mother's home to inquire about her whereabouts. She also alleges that her stepfather was killed in 2017 after he attempted to leave al-Shabaab and that her brother was forced to flee to Ethiopia after al-Shabaab attempted to forcibly recruit him. The RPD's decision [8] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to credibly establish her personal and national identity for the following reasons: * The Appellant failed to provide documents in support of her identity, including school documents from Somalia, corroboration of her traditional marriage to a Somali man deported from Sweden, documents from her detention in Ukraine, and corroboration of her failed asylum claim in Sweden; * The Appellant's testimony about her Swedish asylum documents was inconsistent; * The email from a friend in Sweden provides insufficient information; * The sworn statement and testimony from an extended family member in Canada was vague, repetitive, inconsistent, and lacking in probative value regarding the Appellant's whereabouts since 2008; * The Dixon Community letter and sworn statement from Midaynta Community Services contain unsupported extrapolations in support of the Appellant's identity and are therefore given no weight; and * The Appellant's mother's letter is unsigned, contains inconsistent information, and was mailed from Kenya, not Somalia. ANALYSIS Issues [9] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in assessing identity and credibility, as follows: * In misapprehending her testimony, witness testimony, and supporting documents; * In casting doubt on her identity because her witness last saw her in Somalia in 2008; * In failing to take into consideration her particular circumstances in determining whether she provided a reasonable explanation for her lack of identity documentation or whether she took reasonable steps to obtain documentation; and * In breaching procedural fairness by drawing an adverse inference based on concerns arising from post-hearing documents without providing an opportunity to respond. [10] After listening to the entire RPD hearing audio-recording and independently assessing all of the evidence, I find that the RPD erred in its assessment of identity. While I have upheld some of the RPD's findings with respect to the Appellant's mother's letter, I do not find that the RPD's remaining findings are correct. I will explain why the RPD's findings are in error before providing my reasons for allowing the appeal and accepting the Appellant's claim. The RPD misapprehended the Appellant's testimony, witness testimony, and evidence [11] Counsel argues that the RPD misapprehended much of the Appellant's evidence, including her testimony, witness testimony, and supporting documents. Having independently assessed the entire RPD Record, as well as the complete RPD hearing audio-recording, I agree. The Appellant's testimony about her asylum claim in Sweden [12] The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony about her Swedish asylum claim documents to be inconsistent. The RPD describes the Appellant's testimony, as follows: RPD's recollection of the initial testimony RPD's recollection of the later testimony "As to any documentation related to her failed asylum claim and the two appeals in Sweden, the Claimant first testified that she did not receive any such documents, because she did not read Swedish and was simply told orally that her claim was denied."2 "The claimant changed her testimony by explaining that she did not take the Swedish asylum documents issued in her name because she was travelling on the Danish passport under another identity and did not want to be apprehended with both in her possession."3 [13] Counsel argues that the RPD misapprehended the Appellant's testimony. Having independently assessed the evidence, I agree with Counsel. According to my review of the RPD hearing audio-recording, the Appellant's testimony is as follows: Initial testimony on the audio-recording Later testimony on the audio-recording RPD MEMBER: Did they issue you any documents, the reason why you were rejected, anything from your time there? APPELLANT: At the time, since I do not read their language, their papers were in Swedish, I received it and people told me there was rejection. At that point I could not read it or understand it. They said you have another chance, maybe you can claim again.4 RPD MEMBER: Do you have any documents from the appeal? APPELLANT: No. The other day I did ask a friend to go there to ask for documents. RPD MEMBER: Why not take those documents with you before you travelled to Canada? APPELLANT: I was really scared, I knew I was travelling with someone else's documents, I did not want to be caught with documents from two different people.5 [14] The Appellant's testimony is not inconsistent. While the Appellant indicated that she does not currently have any of the asylum documents in her possession, she did not testify that she only received the asylum denial orally. Rather, she testified that there was a written decision but that she could not read the contents. As a result, she had the contents of the decision read aloud. I find that the RPD misapprehended the Appellant's testimony and that the adverse inference it drew is without foundation. The email from the Appellant's friend in Sweden [15] The Appellant submitted an email from a friend in Sweden corroborating her efforts to obtain her Swedish asylum documents.6 The RPD assigned no weight to the email because it does not include the Appellant's surname and date of birth and it fails to reproduce any other information provided to Swedish immigration authorities.7 The RPD found that the email does not establish the Appellant's personal or national identity. Counsel argues that the RPD misapprehends the purpose of the email. I agree with Counsel. While it is true that the email is not probative as to the Appellant's personal and national identity, it was not tendered for this purpose. Rather, it was provided in corroboration of the Appellant's efforts to obtain her Swedish asylum documents. I do not agree with the RPD that the fact that the email does not include the Appellant's surname and date of birth means it is worthy of no wight. The absence of this information does not undermine the probative value of the friend's description of the efforts she took to obtain the Appellant's documents. [16] Moreover, while the inclusion of information provided to Swedish immigration authorities, including a copy of any signed authorization, would have enhanced the probative value of the email, the fact the email does not include this information is an insufficient basis upon which to accord it no weight. It is certainly no basis to discount the evidence that the email does provide about the friend's efforts to obtain the asylum documentation, which is entirely consistent with the Appellant's allegations. It is trite law that supporting documents should be taken for what they do say, and not for what they do not say.8 I find that the RPD misapprehended the purpose of the email and erred by according it no weight. The witness testimony of the Appellant's extended family memberXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [17] The RPD found that the Appellant's identity witness, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.,9 provided testimony that was inconsistent with his sworn statement and was also vague and repetitive.10 The RPD also found that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX's inability to provide evidence as to the Appellant's whereabouts since he last saw her in Somalia in 2008 undermined the probative value of his evidence. Counsel argues that the RPD erred by failing to make its adverse credibility findings against the witness in clear and unmistakable terms, by misapprehending the witness testimony, and engaging in speculation. Having undertaken my own assessment of the entire Record, I agree with Counsel. [18] The RPD found that while XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX affidavit contained detailed information about why he and the Appellant belong to different clans, when he was asked in testimony why this is the case, he answered: "Because that's her clan."11 The RPD found this inconsistent. Counsel argues that the RPD has entirely misapprehended XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX's testimony. Having independently assessed the evidence, I agree with Counsel. The witness was able to state his own clan, the Appellant's clan, and the clan of the Appellant's mother.12 While it is true that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX testified that the Appellant is Ashraf because "that is the tribe that she is from," he also testified that the Appellant's father is Ashraf.13 This testimony is consistent with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.'s sworn statement, where he identifies his own clan, the Appellant's clan, the Appellant's mother's clan, as well as her father's clan.14 The RPD misapprehended XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.'s testimony. [19] With regard to the finding that the witness provided vague and repetitive testimony, the RPD does not give examples of how the witness was vague or repetitive, besides noting that he failed to elaborate in his answers. In accordance with Hilo, the RPD erred when it failed to make its adverse credibility findings in clear and unmistakable terms.15 While it is true that a number of questions needed to be rephrased and repeated, I do not find that this undermines the credibility of the testimony. The witness was examined by the RPD and Counsel for less than twenty minutes and answered the questions posed in a consistent fashion, providing an adequate level of elaboration and detail in response to the questions posed.16 In particular, the witness provided a number of details about the family, their connection, the names of relatives, and his recollection of how he first met the Appellant in Somalia was consistent. [20] Moreover, I agree with Counsel's argument that the RPD erred when it drew an adverse inference as to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.'s evidence based on his having last seen the Appellant in 2008. The RPD writes: "Furthermore, the witness could not provide any relevant or probative evidence as to the claimant's whereabouts since he last saw her in Somalia in 2008."17 While it is true that the witness testimony is not probative as to the Appellant's whereabouts from 2008 to 2018, the RPD had no basis upon which to find that this lack of contact undermines the probative value of the sworn witness testimony that he is the Appellant's blood relative, and that she is who she says she is, and that she is a national of Somalia. It is also worth noting that there is nothing in the Record which would support an inference that the Appellant had obtained immigration status in another country during the period where she was no longer in contact with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. To speculate about an Appellant's nationality without any foundation in the face of sworn witness testimony, especially from a relative whose own identity and nationality is not questioned, based on when an Appellant and a witness were last in contact, runs contrary to the jurisprudence.18 I find that the RPD's treatment of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX's testimony and evidence is in error. Community letter and sworn statement from Canada [21] The RPD accorded no weight to two supporting documents from Somali community organizations in Canada. Specifically, the RPD had concerns about specific statements contained in a statutory declaration from a Midaynta Intake Worker and a letter of support from Dixon Community Services.19 The RPD found that both documents contain unsupportable assertions about the Appellant's Somali nationality and citizenship in no other country based on her physical appearance.20 Counsel argues that such a finding is in error and that the organizations were not wrong to consider the Appellant's physical features. [22] Having undertaken my own assessment of the community letter and sworn statement, I agree with the RPD that one's physical features do not establish that a person has citizenship in one country to the exclusion of all others. Physical features are in no way determinative of citizenship. I accord no weight to these conclusions in both of the support documents. However, I do not find that these speculative comments by the community organizations wholly undermines their probative value. The sworn statement in particular provides significant detail regarding the Appellant's fluency in the Standard Somali dialect of central and southern Somalia, consistent with the Appellant's Ashraf clan membership; her knowledge of her home city of Qoryoley; and her familiarity with culture and customs.21 While not alone determinative, the community support documents are probative as to the Appellant's national identity. The support letter from the Appellant's mother [23] The Appellant provided the RPD with a letter from her mother following the conclusion of her RPD hearing. The RPD reviewed and made adverse credibility findings on based on the face of the letter and tracking information without having provided the Appellant an opportunity to respond. As explained below, I find that one of the RPD's findings with respect to this letter is in error and the remaining findings are correct. [24] The RPD found that the letter from the Appellant's mother does not have a signature.22 Having undertaken my own assessment of the support letter, I note that it is in fact signed.23 The RPD misapprehended this evidence and the adverse inference it drew on this basis is in error. [25] I find that the RPD correctly noted that the letter: includes an additional name for the Appellant's mother; the date of birth listed for the Appellant's mother is inconsistent with the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) amendment; the letter itself does not contain an address; and the letter was mailed from Kenya, not Somalia where the Appellant's mother is alleged to be residing. Counsel argues that in making these findings without recalling the hearing, the RPD breached the Appellant's right to procedural fairness. I am not persuaded by Counsel's argument. [26] The Federal Court has been clear that "the rules of procedural fairness do not require refugee claimants to be confronted about information that they are aware of and which they have, in addition, provided themselves."24 In drawing an adverse inference based on the name and birthday on the letter and the location that the envelope originates from while the letter itself does not contain an address, the RPD was referencing information that the Appellant herself provided. The RPD was under no duty to recall the hearing or invite submissions about inconsistencies apparent on the face of the Appellant's own post-hearing documents. It was open to the Appellant to address these readily apparent discrepancies in submitting the post-hearing evidence to the RPD. Most especially, the Appellant is represented by Counsel and could have explained in post-hearing submissions accompanying the letter why it originates from Kenya, and not Somalia. However, she failed to do so. I find that Counsel's argument is without merit. I further find that the RPD was correct to place no weight on the Appellant's mother's letter based on these unexplained material inconsistencies. Summary [27] Having set aside the RPD's misapprehension of the Appellant's evidence, I find that the RPD erred in its determination that the Appellant's testimony, witness testimony, and much of her supporting documentation is inconsistent and lacking in credibility. While I have upheld most of the RPD's findings with respect to the letter from the Appellant's mother, and I find that the RPD was correct to accord this letter no weight, I do not find this to be a sufficient basis upon which to uphold the RPD's negative determination, especially when considered in light of the remaining and otherwise credible evidence. The Appellant has credibly established her personal and national identity [28] The RPD correctly noted in its Reasons that a Claimant who is unable to establish her identity with acceptable documentation must provide a reasonable explanation outlining what steps they took to obtain evidence, in the form of documents or witness testimony.25The RPD was also correct to provide the Appellant additional time after the RPD hearing to gather documentation. The RPD properly considered the impact of the Appellant's time in detention and pregnancy on her ability to gather documentation. The RPD also properly considered the impact of the civil war, and the lack of a functioning Somali government at the time of the Appellant's birth and time in Somalia, on her lack of primary identity documents.26 However, I find that in addition to misapprehending much of the Appellant's evidence, the RPD did not properly consider her particular circumstances - as a woman who fled Somalia as a minor through irregular means - in determining whether she took reasonable steps to corroborate her identity. I find that the Appellant did take reasonable efforts in light of her personal circumstances. Through her friend in Sweden, she tried to obtain her Swedish asylum documents. In addition, she was not provided with documentation corroborating her proxy traditional marriage, and her Quranic schooling in Somalia occurred before she was forced to flee Somalia as a minor. The absence of these documents has been reasonably explained. I also note that the e-ticket seized at the POE corroborates the Appellant's journey to Canada.27 [29] Regarding the Appellant's use of an improper travel document, I note that refugee Claimants fleeing for their lives may need to obtain and rely on irregularly obtained travel documents. I have not drawn an adverse credibility inference based on the Appellant's use of an irregularly obtained Danish passport to flee to Canada. She used this document in order to flee a risk to her life, in the face of a Swedish order to return to Somalia. [30] Having considered all of the evidence, I find that the RPD had insufficient grounds to conclude that the Appellant was not a credible witness as to her personal and national identity. While the inconsistencies in the letter alleged to be from the Appellant's mother gives me some reason to doubt the Appellant's credibility, I note that the standard of a balance of probabilities leaves room for a significant amount of doubt in the mind of a trier of fact.28 This is to be weighed against the Appellant's testimony, which was consistent and credible about her identity, journey, and immigration history, as well as the witness testimony and community documents. I also note that Counsel's objective evidence about the asylum system in Sweden and the immigration system in Ukraine, including the routine detention of minors, is consistent with the Appellant's own allegations.29 I find that the Appellant has credibly established her personal identity and Somali nationality, on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant has established her refugee claim against Somalia [31] As the RPD was not satisfied on the issue of identity, it did not make a finding on the merits of the claim. Having conducted my own assessment of the Record, I find that the Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution upon return to Somalia, that her fears are well-founded, and that she does not have access to state protection or a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). Credible testimony about past persecution and forward-looking fear [32] Having listened to the entire RPD hearing audio-recording, I find that the Appellant provided consistent and detailed testimony about her allegations of past persecution in Somalia, including the attempted forced marriage and recent al-Shabaab visitations at her mother's home. The RPD did not identify any credibility concerns with this testimony and I have no reason to find otherwise on appeal. I find that the presumption of truthfulness has not been rebutted and the Appellant has established her allegations, on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant's claim against Somalia is well-founded [33] The objective evidence indicates that al-Shabaab is widely known to engage in gender-based violence, including forced marriage.30 In addition to girls, young women have also been targeted.31 One of the most significant human rights concerns in Somalia remains widespread violence against women with little government action for accountability.32 Gender-based violence in Somalia is "closely linked to power and deeply rooted in unequal gender power relations and social exclusion."33 It is for this reason that women who are members of minority clans, such as the Appellant, face an increased risk.34 Al-Shabaab are known to specifically target the Appellant's Ashraf clan.35 I find that the Appellant's fears are well-founded and that she faces a serious possibility of persecution upon return to Somalia. Neither adequate state protection nor IFA are available to the Appellant [34] I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the Appellant to seek state protection in Somalia. Police lack basic infrastructure and logistical support, and are generally ineffective in the south and central regions where policing duties falls upon Somali troops and local militias in areas where al-Shabaab has been driven out.36 As a result, human rights violations take place with impunity.37 This is especially the case for those belonging to minority clans and for survivors of gender-based violence.38 [35] I further find that a viable IFA does not exist for the Appellant in Somalia. In south and central Somalia, the security situation is volatile and marred by ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by government forces and al-Shabaab.39 Moreover, as a woman and a member of a minority clan, the Appellant is at greater risk without a support network.40 There is no safe, reasonable IFA available to the Appellant in South and Central Somalia. Because she does not originate from either Puntland or Somaliland, I am satisfied that the Appellant does not have a legal right to return to these territories, and that conditions for minority clan members, particularly those internally displaced, render these IFAs unavailable as well.41 CONCLUSION [36] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. (signed) "J. Pollock" J. Pollock June 10, 2020 Date 1 Canada (MCI) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at para. 103. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 9, at para. 26 [emphasis added]. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 9, at para. 26 [emphasis added]. 4 RPD hearing audio-recording, May 25, 2018, timestamp 00:27:35 [emphasis added]. 5 RPD hearing audio-recording, May 25, 2018, timestamp 00:29:00 [emphasis added]. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at p. 289. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 11, at para. 32. 8 Mahmud v. Canada (MCI), 1999 CanLII 8019 (FC), at para. 11; Sitnikova v. Canada (MCI), 2016 FC 464, at paras. 22-24; Arslan v. Canada (MCI), 2013 FC 252, at para. 88; Gabila v. Canada (MCI), 2016 FC 574, at paras. 37-39. 9 Personal identifiers have been removed, except where necessary to explain the reasoning of the decision. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at pp. 13-14, at paras. 41-46. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 14, at para. 44. 12 RPD hearing audio-recording, May 25, 2018, timestamp 01:26:00-01:37:00. 13 RPD hearing audio-recording, May 25, 2018, timestamp 01:36:37-01:37:45. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 256-257. 15 Hilo v. Canada (MEI), [1991] FCJ No 228 (FCA), at para. 6. 16 RPD hearing audio-recording, May 25, 2018, timestamp 01:26:00-01:45:00. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 14, at para. 46. 18 Ibrahim v. Canada (MCI), 2016 FC 11, at para. 17. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at pp. 11-13, at paras. 33-39. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 259-260; Exhibit 9, at p. 313. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 260. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, at pp. 14-15, at para. 47. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at pp. 298-306. 24 Moïse v Canada (MCI), 2019 FC 93, at para. 9; Gu v. Canada (MCI), 2017 FC 543, at para. 29; Akanniolu v. Canada (MCI), 2019 FC 311, at para. 46. 25 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c 27, as amended, at s. 106; Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, Rule 11. 26 Elmi v. Canada (MCI), 2008 FC 773, at paras. 22-23. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 91. 28 X (Re), 2018 CanLII 109695 (CA IRB), at para. 18. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 143-178; Exhibit 6, at pp. 263-272. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.7; Item 1.8; Item 1.13; Item 2.1; Item 5.1; Item 5.2; Exhibit 4, at pp. 179-180, 186, 192, 209. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 218. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 2.1. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 5.2, at p. 8. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.9; Item 1.7, at p. 337; Item 1.10; Item 1.17, at para. 4.1.4; Item 1.18, at para. 7.2.1; Item 13.8, at p. 81. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 13.6. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 2.1; Item 1.10, at p. 14. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.4; Item 1.6; Item 1.11, at para. 5; Item 1.13, at para. 5.1; Exhibit 4, at p. 188. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.7, at p. 337; Item 1.17, at para. 4.1.1-4.1.4; Item 1.18, at para. 7.2.1; Item 13.8, at p. 81; Exhibit 4, at p. 218. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.10, at p. 3; Item 1.11, at para. 4; Item 1.13, at paras. 5.13-5.14. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.10, at pp. 8-10, 14; Item 1.11, at para. 12. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (30 April 2018), Item 1.10, at p. 14. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR: TB8-17378 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