TC1-03028

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : TC1-03028 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 Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision October 5, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Hart Kaminker 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 INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, you have declared that you are a Somali citizen and that you fear persecution in that country.1 [2] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship of Canada (the Minister) intervened before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and submitted that there were a number of credibility issues indicating that you were probably not a Somali citizen named XXXX XXXX XXXX.2 [3] The RPD concluded that you had failed to establish your identity.3 [4] On appeal, you provided documents and requested an oral hearing.4 You also argued that the RPD erred in rejecting your refugee protection claim.5 [5] I conclude that the evidence presented on appeal is not admissible (I) and that there is no cause to hold an oral hearing (II). I also conclude that the RPD did not err as you allege (III). [6] In light of these conclusions, your appeal is dismissed. I. EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [7] On appeal, you presented documents that, in your view, are admissible. These documents and their contents are as follows: A-1: A temporary travel document dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, from the Somali Embassy in Malaysia;6 A-2: An affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, stating that you, his sister, called him from Canada and asked him to prove that you were born as XXXX XXXX XXXX;7 A-3: A certificate confirming your identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in Mogadishu, indicating that your occupation is that of a student, issued on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, by the municipality of Mogadishu, showing what should be your photograph and fingerprint, but without specifying when they were taken, and showing a stamp from the ministry of foreign affairs and international cooperation dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021;8 A-4: Your birth certificate showing that your name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, you were born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, your father's name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, your mother's name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, your address is XXXX, issued on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, by the municipality of Mogadishu, on which is printed a stamp from the ministry of foreign affairs and international cooperation dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021;9 A-5: A receipt issued by the ministry of finance on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX stating that US$XXXX was paid for XXXX XXXX XXXX, with no translation provided for these words;10 A-6: A letter from the Somali Embassy in Ottawa dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, with a footnoted address of 124 Mosswood Crt, Ontario, Ottawa, K1V 1N6, and the email ottawaembassy@mfa.gov.so, stating that the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Somalia has sent your birth certificate and certificate of identity document to the ministry of foreign affairs of the Federal Republic of Somalia and that the ministry has confirmed that the document referred to is genuine;11 and A-7: Posts on Facebook about XXXX XXXX.12 [8] The Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules) provide that the appellant must submit a memorandum that includes full and detailed submissions regarding how the documentary evidence that they want to rely on in the appeal meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and how that evidence relates to the appellant.13 A. Your arguments about the admissibility of these documents [9] In your memorandum, you submit that these documents should be admitted into evidence because they relate to a determinative issue, your identity, and meet the criteria of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.14 [10] Specifically, you submit that: - these documents are credible: some of them are issued either by the Somali Embassy or by government offices in Somalia; the affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX was sworn before a notary public in Somalia and contains his photograph; as for the Facebook posts, there is no reason to doubt their authenticity;15 - these documents are relevant because they deal with a determinative issue, namely your personal identity and your national identity or identity as a citizen of Somalia;16 - these documents are new because most of them were issued after the RPD decision or because they establish a fact that the RPD did not accept, namely that you are a citizen of Somalia;17 - with respect to the Temporary Travel Document and the information about XXXX XXXX, although they were not issued after the RPD decision, they establish facts that were not established before the RPD or refute findings by the RPD;18 - this evidence is substantial as it concerns the determinative issue in the rejection of your refugee protection claim;19 - with respect to the explicit statutory requirements, because you had little or no contact with people living in Somalia, you had difficulty obtaining the documents from that country, but your aunt's current presence in Somalia allowed you to obtain them;20 - with respect to the Temporary Travel Document, after the RPD rejected your claim, you contacted a friend in Malaysia who was able to obtain it with the help of a Somali community group;21 - as for the affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX, you had difficulty contacting him, but you were finally able to do so;22 and - as for the social media posts, it is reasonable for you not to have seen them, and it was after the RPD rejected your claim that you better understood their relevance.23 B. My analysis of these documents [11] In my view, these documents are not admissible. The reasons are as follows. Criteria to be met [12] As the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Singh, there is no doubt that the explicit conditions set out in subsection 110(4) have to be met and leave no room for discretion on the part of the RAD, meaning that only the following evidence is admissible: - evidence that arose after the rejection of the claim; - evidence that was not reasonably available; or - evidence that was reasonably available, but that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection.24 [13] Subsection 110(3) of the IRPA states that the RAD must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the RPD proceedings. Subsection 110(4) creates an exception to this general rule. The existence of criteria governing the admissibility of new evidence on appeal helps to preserve the integrity of the process by promoting finality with respect to the factual record at the first level of decision-making, with very limited exceptions, and encouraging the narrowing of issues as matters move up the appellate ladder.25 [14] Depending on the circumstances of each case, the RAD will always have the freedom to apply the conditions of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA with more or less flexibility.26 However, the Federal Court stated in Hassan that the flexible approach described in Singh concerns the admissibility of new evidence only after the threshold requirements of subsection 110(4) have been met. The Court then held that subsection 110(4) must be narrowly interpreted and the role of the RAD is not to provide the opportunity to complete a deficient record submitted before the RPD.27 The newness of these documents [15] What is certain is that the documents presented with your memorandum of appeal do not relate to events that arose after the rejection of your claim by the RPD. [16] In this regard, the fact that a document was made after your claim was rejected does not mean that the facts it refers to are new or that they occurred after the rejection. [17] Furthermore, it is my view that the documents submitted in your appeal do not seek to establish facts that were unknown to you at the time of the RPD hearing and, as such, are not new.28 In that respect, the Federal Court noted that subsection 110(4) deals strictly with evidence that a claimant did not submit to the RPD before it rejected the refugee protection claim.29 [18] As for your argument that some of these documents are new because they refute a negative finding by the RPD, it must be rejected. [19] First, the Federal Court has previously held that the possibility that evidence presented on appeal may contradict a finding by the RPD is not sufficient to bring it within the parameters of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.30 [20] Second, your argument is based on a suggestion set out in Raza, but not repeated in Singh. In examining the newness criterion in Raza, the Federal Court of Appeal notes in Singh that it may appear somewhat redundant and that it did not really add to the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.31 [21] Lastly, in the same decision, the Court of Appeal reviewed the existence of the judicial principle whereby the evidence and issues must be introduced exhaustively and dealt with at trial in criminal matters or at first instance in civil matters. As a case progresses, the issues in the matter must normally be further narrowed; the effect of introducing new evidence would be rather to expand the scope of the debate. The Court went on to cite approvingly a passage from the RAD's decision concerning the same matter: On this topic, it should be noted that the fact that evidence corroborates facts, contradicts RPD findings or clarifies evidence before the RPD does not make it "new evidence" within the meaning of subsection 110(4) of the Act. If that were the case, refugee protection claimants could split their evidence and present evidence before the RAD at the appeal stage that could have been presented at the start, before the RPD. In my opinion, this is exactly what subsection 110(4) of the Act seeks to prohibit.32 Was it reasonable for you not to have presented these documents to the RPD? [22] In your memorandum, you submit that you did not present some of these documents to the RPD-A-3, A certificate confirming your identity; A-4, Your birth certificate; and A-5, Proof of payment of fees-because you had little or no contact with people living in Somalia and you could only obtain documents from that country with difficulty. With respect to the affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX (A-2), you state that you had difficulty contacting him, but you were eventually able to do so. [23] With respect to the Temporary Travel Document (A-1), you submit that after your refugee protection claim was rejected, you contacted a friend in Malaysia who was able to obtain it with the help of a Somali community group. [24] With respect to the social media posts (A-7), you state that it was after the RPD rejected your claim that you better understood their relevance. [25] The question is whether, in your circumstances, these documents were available and whether or not it was reasonable to expect you to present them to the RPD.33 In my opinion, these documents were available and it was reasonable to expect that you would present them to the RPD before it rejected your refugee protection claim. [26] You signed your BOC Form on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.34 Under the Refugee Protection Division Rules (RPD Rules), you were required to provide acceptable documents establishing your identity. If you could not do so, you had to explain why you did not provide the documents and what steps you took to obtain them.35 The hearing before the RPD began on February 4, 2021, and continued on February 24, 2021. Its decision was rendered on March 29, 2021. You therefore had approximately one full year to take the necessary steps to submit such documents to the RPD. Even after the hearing, you could have presented them, subject to making an application to the RPD to admit them in evidence.36 [27] In reading documents A-3 and A-4, there is nothing to confirm that they were obtained by your aunt who, in XXXX 2021, was allegedly visiting Somalia and obtained them for you. You did not provide an affidavit signed by her that could have corroborated this. [28] In reading documents A-1, A-2 and A-7, there is no evidence to confirm that it was not possible for you to obtain them and present them to the RPD before it rejected your claim. Specifically, with respect to your brother XXXX whose affidavit you submitted (A-2), you stated during the RPD hearing that you spoke with him over the telephone in 2018, that he lived in Somalia, but that you did not ask him to write a letter about your identity.37 Therefore, I consider that these documents were reasonably available and that you could have presented them to the RPD. [29] In my opinion, these documents are intended to remedy deficiencies in the evidence you presented before the RPD, which is not the purpose of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA,38 while the onus was on you to make your best arguments before the RPD.39 Are these documents genuine and credible? [30] The documentary evidence suggests that the issuance of official documents in Somalia is a real problem. In fact, there are no official documents, but it is possible to obtain documents if you know the right intermediaries. The documentary evidence also indicates that there is no official birth registration system in Somalia and only hospitals are registering births.40 According to information obtained in XXXX 2019, Somalia remains an identification dark zone, a region that has no formal legal, secure, reliable, inclusive and verifiable identification system. In other words, there is no recognized competent civil authority in Somalia to issue civil documents.41 [31] Based on this documentary evidence, the authenticity of the birth certificate (A-4), which was allegedly issued by the municipality of Mogadishu, is questionable. Not to mention that this document associates you with an address in Somalia, even though you left Somalia several years ago. As for the certificate confirming your identity (A-3) and the receipt (A-5), they both refer to you as XXXX XXXX XXXX rather than XXXX XXXX XXXX. [32] As for the letter (A-6) from the Somali Embassy in Canada, it states that a birth certificate and a certificate of identity document belonging to you has been sent to the ministry of foreign affairs of the Federal Republic of Somalia and that the ministry has confirmed that the document referred to is genuine. That said, the two documents in question are not identified as such, nor are they reproduced as an annex to this letter. In my opinion, this letter alone does not establish which identity documents were actually sent to the ministry of foreign affairs. In other words, without knowing what documents were actually sent to this ministry, I cannot give this letter any weight. In other words, this letter is of little or no persuasiveness when compared to the other documents I have just analyzed.42 [33] As for the affidavit filed as your brother's (A-2), you write in your BOC Form43 and you stated during the RPD hearing44 that he is a Canadian citizen. In this affidavit, there is no information about his Canadian citizenship. He simply identifies himself as a Somali living in Galkacyo. In any case, the only statement made in this affidavit is that you are the sister of this person and that you were born under the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX, without explicitly mentioning where and when you were born and whether you are indeed and only a Somali citizen. [34] In my view, given the source and circumstances in which this affidavit appeared, its credibility and reliability are questionable. Therefore, it need not be considered45 and is not admitted into evidence. II. ORAL HEARING BEFORE THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [35] Under the RAD Rules, an appellant is required to submit a memorandum that includes full and detailed submissions regarding why the RAD should hold an oral hearing.46 [36] In your written statement, you request an oral hearing in accordance with the criteria identified in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA,47 but do not provide in your memorandum full and detailed submissions as to why the RAD should hold such a hearing. [37] The onus rests on the RAD to determine whether the criteria set out in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA have been met.48 This subsection makes holding an oral hearing before the RAD subject to three conditions regarding the existence of new documentary evidence.49 However, I have concluded that the evidence you presented on appeal is not admissible. As a result, there is no new evidence on appeal, and an oral hearing cannot be held.50 III. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL [38] The role of the RAD is not to conduct a de novo consideration of a claim for refugee protection but rather to determine whether the RPD erred as alleged.51 I have conducted an analysis of your record in order to reach my own conclusions and to respond to the central issues raised by your appeal,52 including reading the transcript of the RPD hearing53 and the documentary evidence. I find that the correctness standard must be applied.54 A. The errors you allege the Refugee Protection Division made [39] Under the RAD Rules, the person who is the subject of an appeal must state: (i) the errors that are the grounds of the appeal, and (ii) where the errors are located in the RPD's decision or in the transcript or in any recording of the hearing.55 [40] In your memorandum, you claim that you established your personal and national identity through the evidence you presented in your appeal.56 I found that this evidence was not new and therefore not admissible in your appeal. Furthermore, I have not found in your memorandum any full and detailed submissions about the errors that the RPD allegedly made in relation to your claim and the evidence that you filed with it at the time. [41] However, you submit that because of your personal situation, being a XXXX-year-old woman, belonging to a particular clan, with no family in Somalia, you will face gender-based violence.57 B. Refugee Protection Division's decision [42] In its decision, the RPD: * summarizes your allegations and the route you took to get to Canada;58 * indicates that it took into account the Chairperson's Guideline 4, your education, and any trauma that may have affected your childhood and adult life;59 * identifies your identity and credibility as the determinative issues;60 and * concludes that you have not established your identity after finding that you had not provided reasonable explanations for the lack of acceptable identification documents and that your testimony was not credible.61 [43] I consider it useful here to reproduce the final paragraphs of the RPD's analysis: "91. I have considered counsel's submissions that the claimant's identity, in terms of her name and date and place of birth, has been consistently given by the claimant in two overseas refugee applications, as well as the present refuge claim, and that certain aspects of her overseas refugee claims are consistent with each other and with what she has presently alleged. I also note the names of her parents on her 2016 overseas refugee application are consistent with the names she has alleged as her parents on her BOC form and in her testimony. Of significance, her residential history as alleged in terms of her residing in Saudi Arabia without immigration status, and then in Malaysia without any permanent immigration status, and her holding herself out as a woman of Somali nationality with this same name and date of birth, is supported by the notes of Canadian government officials who assessed these claims. For example, the claimant having gone to Saudi Arabia around the age of 10 and resided there without status until 2009 when she was deported back to Somalia, is consistent in the FOSS notes in the Minister's intervention materials, as the Sponsorship Agreement Holder in Winnipeg emailed the embassy in XXXX 2009 to note that the claimant had been deported from Saudi Arabia and would therefor not be able to attend her refugee interview. These aspects weigh in the claimant's favour in establishing her identity. 92. I have considered this consistency of information and weighed it against the other credibility concerns outlined above and find that it is not sufficient to outweigh such credibility concerns with respects to the claimant's identity. The credibility concerns outlined above relate to fundamental aspects of the claimant's identity: the names of her parents and what happened to them, the names and number of her siblings, and the details of where the claimant resided in her life, including at birth which is the point where she would have derived her Somali nationality. Identity encompasses more than holding oneself out as a person with a particular name and particular date of birth in formal immigration or other legal processes on multiple, previous occasions. Otherwise, a person's identity could be established, on a balance of probabilities, by submitting multiple previous immigration applications in a different identity. 93. I have also taken into account the claimant's allegations of her personal history, namely that at the time of her 2007 overseas refugee application she was a young girl without education, who had fled post civil-war Somalia. She alleges to have been a minor (XXXX years of age) at the time of the XXXX refugee application and the information provided by her sister on that application, and by her sister and half-siblings on their refugee applications to Canada, was therefore not information within her control. She was relying on her sister to put forward her best interests in that 2007 overseas refugee application. I have balanced this consideration against the claimant's lack of reasonable efforts to try and locate and obtain evidence from her sister and other siblings that would speak to these contradictions. I find that the claimant's lack of reasonable efforts to try and obtain evidence from her sister, and others in her family who could provide information about these contradictions as well as independently corroborate her identity, weights against the claimant's credibility. Not only are the claimant's lack of efforts not reasonable pursuant to the requirement of section 106 of the IRPA, her failure to try and obtain such evidence also impede the Board from being able to seek clarification on these contradictions. In sum, the claimant has therefore not credibly established her personal and national identity, on a balance of probabilities.62" C. The Refugee Protection Division made a decision based on all the evidence [44] After conducting my own analysis of your record, I have concluded that the RPD made its decision based on all the evidence before it and that it did not err in concluding that, on a balance of probabilities, you had not established your identity. The reasons are as follows. The legal principles guiding the analysis of the identity of refugee protection claimants [45] The question of whether a person claiming refugee protection has established their identity is a question of fact and credibility.63 The person has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that they are indeed the person whom they claim to be, as identity is a critical element of any refugee protection claim.64 The person is required to provide acceptable documents establishing their identity, failing which they must explain why those documents are not in their possession and what steps have been taken to procure them.65 [46] It is the task of the trier of fact to weigh the documentary and testimonial evidence and to draw conclusions as to whether the evidence is sufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the identity of the refugee protection claimant.66 It is permitted to determine that documents are fraudulent and to give them little or no probative value. It is also permitted to conclude that the provided explanations regarding a document's irregularities simply do not add up. On the other hand, the finding that identity documents found to be false or irregular undermine a claimant's overall credibility must be cautiously approached.67 Although it is unreasonable to conclude that all documents are fraudulent solely because a claimant has presented one which was, it is nonetheless permissible to analyze the documents used to persuade the authorities of a country to issue them a passport, the reliability of that passport being dependent on the reliability of the documents used to obtain it.68 [47] In analyzing your appeal, I also took into account the decision of interest rendered by my colleague, Matthew Oh, which related to the question of whether or not the appellant had established his identity.69 You were required to establish your identity before the Refugee Protection Division [48] You signed your BOC Form on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.70 In your BOC Form, you were asked to attach two copies of any documents you had to support your claim, such as travel documents (including your passport) and identity documents. [49] Under the RPD Rules, you were required to provide the RPD with the original of any document you had previously provided to it without delay upon its written request, no later than at the beginning of the proceeding at which the document was used.71 [50] The same rules state that you must provide acceptable documents establishing your identity and that if you did not, you must explain why you could not provide the documents and what steps you took to obtain them.72 [51] Section 106 of the IRPA provides that, with respect to the credibility of a claimant, the RPD must take into account whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation. You did not establish your identity before the Refugee Protection Division [52] The Minister appeared before the RPD and submitted several documents concerning you. During the hearing, the RPD asked you several questions about contradictions or omissions in statements you had previously made when compared with statements you made in your refugee protection claim. Here are some examples. [53] When confronted by the RPD with the fact that in your refugee protection claim made in Malaysia you state that your father died in 1999 when you were XXXXorm ,XXXX XXXX years old, you stated that this information was incorrect and that you did not know why the document in question contained these errors.73 [54] Confronted by the RPD with the fact that in the interview in Malaysia in 2018 you stated that you were abducted with your mother and father, but that your mother had returned and you had lived with her, you stated that you did not know, but that there may have been a translation error.74 [55] When confronted by the RPD with the fact that your claim in Saudi Arabia in 2007 states that you lived with your grandfather, you answered that you were not raised by your grandfather, but by your aunt, and that since it was your sister who filed the claim, you did not know what she had written.75 [56] During the hearing, the RPD also confronted you with the fact that you had made conflicting statements about your father, mother and siblings, had not mentioned your half-siblings in your BOC Form when asked to do so, and had not taken steps to obtain a letter from each of them about your identity.76 [57] When confronted by the RPD with the fact that in your testimony you stated that the Somali passport you used to travel to Malaysia was stolen, when in your BOC Form you state that it was lost, you answered that it was not lost but stolen.77 [58] During the hearing, you testified that you came to Canada with the help of a human smuggler, but that you had no knowledge of the contents of the documents used at the time.78 [59] In Elazi, it was held that the absence of a passport and airplane ticket can have a direct bearing on the question of the claimant's identity. Justice Nadon added that it is entirely reasonable to attach great importance to a passport and airplane ticket, as these documents are essential to establish the claimant's identity and their journey to come to Canada. He continued by stating that without a valid reason, it does not seem appropriate to ignore the loss of these documents and that it is too easy to simply state that the said documents have been lost or that the facilitator has taken them.79 [60] Based on my own analysis of your record, the RPD did not err in concluding that you had, on a balance of probabilities, failed to establish your identity. [61] As your identity has not been established, I am not required to analyze your arguments on appeal concerning your fear of being persecuted within the meaning of section 96 or of facing a risk within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.80 CONCLUSION [62] For these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD that you have failed to establish your identity and, consequently, that you are neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA. [63] Your appeal is dismissed. (signed) Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette October 5, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 SPR-1. Your Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) is reproduced at pages 37 to 51, and the documents you submitted in evidence are reproduced at pages 179 to 209 of the scanned version of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record. Your lawyer's written submissions dated March 12, 2021, are reproduced at pages 3 to 10 of the scanned version of the RPD's supplementary record. 2 SPR-1. The Minister's notice of intention to intervene, December 1, 2020, and the documents that he filed in evidence are reproduced at pages 129 to 178 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 3 SPR-1. RPD Reasons and Decision, March 29, 2021, pages 6 to 36 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 4 P-2. Your written statement, pages 3 and 4 of the scanned version of your appeal record. 5 P-2. Your memorandum, May 21, 2021, pages 18 to 29 of the scanned version of your appeal record. 6 P-2. Reproduced at page 5 of the scanned version of your appeal record. 7 P-2. Reproduced at pages 6 and 7 of this same document. 8 P-2. Reproduced at page 10 of this document. 9 P-2. Reproduced at page 11 of this document. 10 P-2. Reproduced at pages 12 and 13 of this document. 11 P-2. Reproduced at page 14 of this document. 12 P-2. Reproduced at pages 15, 16 and 17 of this document. 13 Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules), SOR/2012-257, subparagraph 3(3)(g)(iii). 14 Your memorandum, supra, endnote 5, paragraph 27. 15 Ibid., paragraphs 28 to 31. 16 Ibid., paragraphs 32 to 36. 17 Ibid., paragraphs 37 to 40. 18 Ibid., paragraph 41. 19 Ibid., paragraphs 44, 45 and 46. 20 Ibid., paragraphs 47 to 50. 21 Ibid., paragraphs 51, 52 and 53. 22 Ibid., paragraph 54. 23 Ibid., paragraphs 55 to 59. 24 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, No. A-512-14, de Montigny, Gauthier and Nadon, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 96, paragraphs 34 and 35. 25 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Davoodabadi, No. IMM-1047-18, Norris, March 21, 2019; 2019 FC 350, paragraph 21, citing the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Singh. Anyira v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4790-20, Walker, August 26, 2021; 2021 FC 882, paragraphs 23, 24 and 25. 26 Singh, supra, endnote 24, paragraph 64. 27 Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), No. IMM-4182-18, Fothergill, April 12, 2019; 2019 FC 459, paragraphs 21 and 22. 28 Singh, supra, endnote 24, paragraph 38, citing the decision in Raza. 29 Idumonza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3814-12, Walker, January 25, 2019; 2019 FC 80, paragraph 24. 30 Arafa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-840-18, Walker, January 6, 2019; 2019 FC 6, paragraph 43. 31 Singh, supra, endnote 24, paragraph 46. 32 Ibid., paragraph 50. 33 Arafa, supra, endnote 30, paragraphs 40 and 41. 34 SPR-1. See your signature on your BOC Form, page 47 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 35 Refugee Protection Division Rules (RPD Rules), SOR/2012-256, rule 11. 36 Ibid., rule 43. 37 Transcript of the first part of the RPD hearing held on February 4, 2021, pages 24 and 25 of the scanned version. 38 Manzi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5190-20, Shore, July 6, 2021; 2021 FC 711, paragraph 8, citing Singh, supra, endnote 20, paragraph 54. 39 Digaf v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-950-19, Walker, October 3, 2019; 2019 FC 1255, paragraphs 25 and 26. 40 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), National Documentation Package (NDP), Tab 3.8, Research Directorate, IRB, Somalia: Birth registration, including the issuance of birth certificates; the registration of children attending school; title deeds; whether the owner of a home or business must obtain a title deed (2009-June 2013), Response to Information Request (RIR) SOM104486.FE, June 26, 2013, 8 pages. 41 Ibid., Tab 3.4, Research Directorate, IRB, Somalia: Identity documents, including national ID cards, passports and driver's licences, and the requirements and procedures to obtain them; percentage of the population that holds some form of identity document; whether such documents are accepted elsewhere (2018-July 2020), RIR SOM200235.E, August 28, 2020, 24 pages. 42 Magonza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1506-18, Grammond, January 7, 2019; 2019 FC 14, paragraph 27. 43 SPR-1. In your answer to question 5 of your BOC Form, page 44 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 44 Transcript of the first part of the RPD hearing held on February 4, 2021, page 26 of the scanned version. 45 Singh, supra, endnote 24, paragraphs 38 and 44. 46 RAD Rules, supra, endnote 13, subparagraphs 3(3)(g)(v) and 5(2)(d)(iii). 47 P-2. Your written statement, supra, endnote 4, paragraph 2. 48 Horvath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3425-17, Mosley, February 8, 2018; 2018 FC 147, paragraph 18. 49 Singh, supra, endnote 24, paragraph 48. 50 Abdi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-566-18, Boswell, January 16, 2019; 2019 FC 54, paragraph 29. 51 Dahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-330-17, Crampton, December 4, 2017; 2017 FC 1102, paragraphs 30 and 31. Kanawati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6486-18, Norris, January 3, 2020; 2020 FC 12, paragraphs 23 and 24. 52 Hundal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-441-20, Diner, January 21, 2021; 2021 FC 72, paragraph 17. 53 Transcript of the first part of the RPD hearing held on February 4, 2021, scanned version, 46 pages. Transcript of the second part of the RPD hearing held on February 24, 2021, scanned version, 68 pages. 54 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 55 RAD Rules, supra, endnote 13, subparagraphs 3(3)(g)(i) and (ii). 56 P-2. Your memorandum, supra, endnote 5, paragraph 60. 57 Ibid., paragraphs 61 to 66. 58 SPR-1. RPD Reasons and Decision, supra, endnote 3, paragraphs 2 to 5. 59 Ibid., paragraphs 16, 17 and 18. 60 Ibid., paragraph 7. 61 Ibid., paragraphs 14 to 93. 62 Ibid., paragraphs 91, 92 and 93, citations omitted. 63 Balde v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5553-05, Shore, April 6, 2006; 2006 FC 438, paragraph 10. Hodanu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4712-10, Rennie, April 20, 2011; 2011 FC 474, paragraphs 10 and 22. 64 Matingou-Testie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5205-11, Martineau, April 3, 2012; 2012 FC 389, paragraph 2. 65 Hadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4513-17, Walker, June 7, 2018; 2018 FC 590, paragraph 15. 66 Fritzner Julien v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4886-09, Boivin, March 31, 2010; 2010 FC 351, paragraph 37. 67 Bahati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5309-17, Diner, October 24, 2018; 2018 FC 1071, paragraph 34. 68 Digaf, supra, endnote 28, paragraph 45. 69 Reasons and Decision in file No. TB7-23779, March 1, 2019, 2019 CanLII 114369 (CA IRB), https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2019/2019canlii114369/2019canlii114369.html. 70 SPR-1. See your signature on your BOC Form, page 47 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 71 RPD Rules, SOR/2012-256, subrule 42(1). 72 Ibid., section 11. 73 Transcript of the first part of the hearing, supra, endnote 53, page 13. 74 Idem. 75 Idem. 76 Ibid., pages 14 to 35. And transcript of the second part of the hearing, supra, endnote 53, pages 26 to 30. 77 Ibid., pages 7, 8 and 9. 78 Ibid., pages 35, 36 and 37. 79 Elazi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1038-99, Nadon, February 17, 2000; paragraphs 15 to 18. 80 Salajova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-369-18, McDonald, August 10, 2018; 2018 FC 823, paragraphs 22 and 23. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : TC1-03028 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 16 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français