TB8-08727

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-08727 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 September 9, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Matthew Oh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Lina Anani 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 he is a citizen of Somalia and that he fears persecution from Al-Shabaab. The Appellant appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") rejecting his claim for refugee protection. He argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of his identity. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"), the appeal is dismissed. On an independent assessment, I agree with the RPD's reasons for finding that the Appellant has not established his identity. The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") therefore confirms the RPD's negative determination. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that he was born on XXXX XXXX, 1986 in Jilib, Somalia and that he is a member of the Ogaden clan. During the civil war in Somalia, the Appellant and his family left Jilib. The Appellant was separated from his family, as his mother took him to live with a family on the Kenyan side of the border. [4] In 2005, the Appellant moved to Nairobi. During this time, the Appellant's family in Somalia was targeted by Al-Shabaab. As the Appellant did not have any status in Kenya and as he feared persecution from Al-Shabaab, he decided to leave Kenya. He claims to have used a fraudulent passport in order to fly from Nairobi to Brazil in XXXX 2012, and then made a journey through South and Central America until he reached the United States of America ("USA") where he initiated an asylum claim in late XXXX 2012. [5] The Appellant states that his asylum claim was denied in XXXX 2014, and that it was under appeal at the time he came to Canada. In March 2017, the Appellant crossed into Emerson, Manitoba by foot and made a claim for refugee protection in Canada. [6] The RPD heard the Appellant's claim on February 13, 2018 and rejected it, finding that the Appellant had failed to establish his identity. The RPD found that the Appellant provided inconsistent evidence about his place of residence during his childhood, inconsistent evidence around his reasons and decision to move to Nairobi, inconsistent evidence about his activities in Kenya, as well as inconsistent evidence about his journey to the USA. The RPD considered a number of documents submitted in support of the Appellant's identity, but found that these were insufficient to overcome the various discrepancies regarding the Appellant's identity. Role of the Refugee Appeal Division [7] The jurisprudence establishes that the RAD is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination. Deference is owed to the RPD only where the RPD held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence.1 [8] In the present case, I see no reason to show deference to any of the RPD's findings. I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at my own independent findings based on the evidence before me. MERITS OF THE APPEAL [9] The Appellant's arguments can be summarized as follows: a) That the RPD erred by ignoring relevant evidence about the Appellant's identity; b) That the RPD erred in its various findings about the Appellant's credibility; c) That the RPD erred in its assessment and weighing of the Appellant's supporting documents; and d) That the RPD erred by failing to consider the Appellant's sur place claim. [10] For the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments. On an independent assessment, I agree with the RPD's reasons for determining that the Appellant failed to establish his identity. a) Whether the RPD ignored relevant evidence about the Appellant's identity [11] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by failing to consider evidence regarding the USA's acceptance of the Appellant's identity. There is no merit to this argument. [12] According to the Appellant, the RPD was in possession of his USA claim documents, which corroborated the story that he told to authorities there about the reason for his flight. The Appellant states that the authorities in the USA accepted his identity. The Appellant argues that the RPD ignored this evidence. [13] I am perplexed by the Appellant's argument on this issue. In my own review of the RPD Record, there is no documentation establishing that authorities in the USA accepted the Appellant's identity. The Appellant fails to point to any document in the RPD Record that corroborates his assertion that any immigration official in the USA came to a determination that the he had established his identity. [14] The only documents pertaining to the Appellant's immigration matters in the USA were the order of supervision from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, dated XXXX XXXX, 2013; a number of addendums to that document; and a personal report record.2 In fact, the RPD discussed how the Appellant lacked records regarding his asylum claim and also noted that the Appellant had failed to provide any evidence of his efforts to obtain such documents. To date, there are no documents in the evidentiary record about the Appellant's asylum claim in the USA. The RPD cannot be faulted for failing to consider evidence that was never submitted. There is no error in this respect. b) Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings [15] The RPD drew a number of credibility findings that undermined the Appellant's allegations regarding his identity. The RPD based its findings on a number of discrepancies regarding the Appellant's periods of residence in Somalia and Kenya, as well as the Appellant's journey to the USA. I do not agree that the RPD erred in reaching these findings. Inconsistent evidence regarding the Appellant's childhood place of residence [16] The RPD considered that the Appellant gave inconsistent and evolving evidence regarding his place of residence during his childhood. I agree with this finding in my own independent assessment. [17] According to the Appellant's Basis of Claim ("BOC") narrative, when the civil war began in Somalia, his mother moved him to the Kenyan side of the border. It would appear, however, that the Appellant resided in a border town, as he claimed to have attended an elementary school in Diif, Somalia from 1999 to 2005. At his hearing, the Appellant explained that he had not resided in Somalia since he was five years old, as he was living in the "no man's land" between Somalia and Kenya when he lived in Diif. The RPD considered that the Appellant's residence in a "no man's land" between Somalia and Kenya was not consistent with the Appellant's BOC narrative, which indicates that his mother took him to live with a family on the Kenyan side of the border. [18] When confronted with this inconsistency, the Appellant responded that he lived on the Somali side but that he would cross into the Kenyan side. He claimed that, as a child, he did not understand what it meant to cross from one country to another, and that he only came to understand the difference between Diif, Somalia and Diif, Kenya when he grew up. The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony evolved in response to its concerns and rejected the Appellant's explanation for his inconsistent evidence. [19] The Appellant argues that the RPD microscopically analyzed the evidence and that this is contrary to the jurisprudence. [20] I do not agree that the RPD's assessment is microscopic. The Appellant supposedly lived in or around Diif from the age of five until he was eighteen years old. Having lived there for most of his childhood and up to adulthood, I find it reasonable to expect that the Appellant would be able to identify basic characteristics about where he lived - such as whether he resided on the Somali side of the border, or the Kenyan side. The Appellant's evidence is clearly internally inconsistent. He at first claimed that he had not resided in Somalia since he was five years old and that he instead lived in a "no man's land' between the two countries. This is inconsistent with the BOC narrative, which indicates that the Appellant was taken to live with a family on the Kenyan side, and it remains inconsistent with the Appellant's later testimony that he was in fact living on the Somali side of the border and that he merely crossed into Kenya from there. To summarize, at various points in the evidence, the Appellant claimed to have lived on the Kenyan side of the border, the Somali side, and also in some "no man's land" in between the two. Having lived there for many years, the Appellant should be capable of identifying where he lived. The Appellant's residence history is not a peripheral matter, considering that his identity is the central issue in his claim. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's inconsistent and evolving testimony on this issue undermines his credibility regarding his whereabouts during his childhood. Inconsistent evidence of the Appellant's reasons and decision to move to Nairobi [21] The RPD identified a number of discrepancies in the Appellant's evidence about his reasons and decision to move to Nairobi. I do not agree that the RPD erred in its findings. [22] The Appellant claimed to have moved to Nairobi in 2005. In his written narrative, he explained that it was agreed between his parents that he would move to Nairobi, where he would be relatively safe and where he would be able to have an education. This account was contradicted by the Appellant's own testimony as well as a notarized letter that supposedly came from his father in Kenya. Contrary to the written narrative, the Appellant testified that it was his decision to move to Kenya, rather than his parents' decision. In fact, he claimed to have come to that decision in 2004 and that he phoned his parents later on in 2005 to inform them that he was leaving. When confronted with this, the Appellant failed to address the inconsistency and merely stated that his testimony had been about his personal decision to leave, and that he was trying to convey that he was able to make the decision for himself as an adult. [23] In addition, contrary to the narrative, a notarized letter from the Appellant's father indicated that the Appellant moved to Nairobi in 2005 due to his fear of being recruited by Al-Shabaab.3 The RPD noted that the Al-Shabaab insurgency had not even begun until late 2006, and that the Appellant's written narrative and oral testimony made no mention of a risk from Al-Shabaab at the time he moved to Nairobi. The written narrative claimed that the Appellant left Somalia due to the relatively safer environment in Nairobi and for educational reasons. There was no mention of any fears of forced recruitment. Accordingly, the RPD drew a negative inference in relation to the Appellant's move to Nairobi and assigned little weight to the father's letter. [24] The Appellant argues that the inconsistency about the Appellant's decision to leave Somalia was minor and that the RPD reduced the credibility assessment to a memory test. He also submits that the RPD should have considered that there were armed groups that were fighting in Somalia at the time that the Appellant resided in Somalia, and that these groups later coalesced into Al-Shabaab. As such, it is argued that it was not unreasonable for the Appellant's father to refer to the group by its current name despite the fact that the Appellant left Somalia in 2005. [25] In my view, the facts around the Appellant's decision to relocate to Nairobi are significant. This information is relevant to assessing the credibility of the allegations around the Appellant's residence history abroad. Despite the passage of time, the Appellant should be capable of providing reasonably consistent evidence about his motivations for leaving Somalia and how he reached that decision. It is significant that he could not recall who made this decision and that his evidence provides inconsistent reasons for his having left Somalia. Though I have considered that Al-Shabaab succeeded the Islamic Courts Union, the most significant concern is not around the name used to refer to the group, but rather the risk that was alleged by the Appellant's father. The Appellant never claimed that he feared forced recruitment from Al-Shabaab or any other group in Somalia. The lack of consistency around the Appellant's reasons for leaving Somalia, in addition to the lack of consistency around how this decision was reached, seriously calls into question the Appellant's allegations around his move to Nairobi in 2005. Discrepancies in the Appellant's employment history in Kenya [26] In addition to the above, the RPD also identified discrepancies regarding the Appellant's activities in Nairobi. I agree with the RPD's findings. [27] Though the Appellant's Schedule A form indicated that the Appellant was unemployed in Nairobi from 2005 to 2012, he stated in his BOC narrative and oral testimony that in fact he had a number of different jobs while living in Nairobi at that time. He claimed to have worked as a XXXX XXXX XXXX at Somali-owned XXXX in Nairobi. When confronted with the inconsistent evidence on his activities in Nairobi, the Appellant explained that he meant to indicate that he did not have a "formal" job, and that due to the insecure nature of his work he was sometimes laid off and rehired. The RPD rejected this explanation and drew a negative inference. [28] On appeal, the Appellant emphasizes the unfavourable circumstances under which his responses were given at the port-of-entry. He now complains that a Somali interpreter was not provided to him and that no inferences should be drawn from the inconsistency, which he describes as microscopic. [29] I am not persuaded by this argument. The record does not reflect that the Appellant's answers were completed by port-of-entry officers. Instead, on March 17, 2017, the Appellant was given his various immigration forms to complete. He signed an acknowledgment of conditions, agreeing to complete the forms before his next examination with Canada Border Services Agency ("CBSA").4 It is true that the Appellant completed these forms without the assistance of an interpreter, however I am not satisfied that this excuses the Appellant from any inaccuracies in his forms. The Schedule A form was completed with the assistance of staff from a Non-Governmental Organization ("NGO"), and was signed on March 20, 2017 - three days after his forms were given to him.5 In his Generic Application Form, the Appellant indicated that he is able to communicate in English.6 When he later had another interview with CBSA on March 21, 2017, the Appellant even waived his right to an interpreter and chose to proceed in English.7 [30] Clearly, even without the assistance of a Somali interpreter, the Appellant was able to communicate a great deal of information in English such that he was able to complete his interview with CBSA and also complete his various immigration forms. This included detailed information about the Appellant's identity, family information, background, travel history, detention history, and residential history. I am not persuaded that the Appellant's English skills were so lacking that he could not have effectively communicated that he had several jobs while living in Nairobi. I find that the RPD correctly rejected the Appellant's explanation. It is not reasonable that the Appellant claimed to be unemployed for seven years in Nairobi simply because his job was insecure. [31] The RPD's finding is not minor or microscopic, as the Appellant argues. The Appellant's residence history is highly material to determining his identity. His inability to give consistent evidence about his activities during his seven-year period of residence in Nairobi is very concerning. On an independent assessment, I agree with the RPD that this inconsistency undermines the Appellant's allegations regarding his period of residence in Nairobi. Inconsistent evidence regarding the Appellant's alleged detention in Mexico [32] The RPD also doubted the Appellant's description of his journey to the USA. When questioned about his alleged detention in Mexico, the Appellant contradicted his BOC narrative. Though the narrative states that the Appellant was detained in Mexico for seven days, the Appellant testified that he was held for two weeks. When confronted with the inconsistent information, the Appellant attempted to clarify that he was detained for only the first week, and that he meant to convey that he was at the mercy of authorities even when he was released, as he was waiting to be issued a document that would allow him to continue traveling onwards to the USA. He explained that what he really meant to express was that he was not a free man in Mexico. [33] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred because it did not consider his low level of education and unsophisticated nature. It is submitted that the RPD engaged in a microscopic analysis of the evidence. [34] I do not agree that the RPD erred. The RPD was cautious in considering whether the Appellant had an understanding of what it meant to be detained. The panel was clearly satisfied that the Appellant understood its meaning. It noted that the Appellant gave testimony about his detention in Panama, and how he was able to distinguish his detentions in Panama and Mexico from his experience in Honduras, where he was not placed in a detention centre but was still stopped by police. He knew what it meant to be in a country with irregular status, what it meant to be detained, and what it meant to be released. On an independent assessment, I agree with the RPD's reasons for rejecting the Appellant's explanations for his inconsistent evidence. [35] As to the significance of this finding, I do not agree that the inconsistency is a minor one. The Appellant should have been reasonably capable of providing a consistent account of his journey to the USA. Regardless of the Appellant's low level of sophistication, I expect that a one or two week detention in Mexico would not be easily forgotten. It is also important to consider the context of this finding, in that the RPD had no evidence of the Appellant's journey to the USA. Although he claimed that authorities seized his documents each time he passed through a different country, the Appellant made no efforts to obtain copies of his documents from authorities in the USA, who are supposedly in possession of the Appellant's Mexican documents. The total lack of corroborative evidence in this respect made it all the more important for the Appellant to give a credible account of his travel. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's failure to give consistent testimony on these facts is sufficient to find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's travel to the USA did not occur as alleged. c) Whether the RPD erred in its assessment and weighing of the supporting documents [36] Though I have considered the Appellant's arguments, I also find that the RPD correctly assessed and weighed the various supporting documents submitted in the claim. [37] In support of his identity, the Appellant provided the following documents: * A letter from XXXX XXXX8 * A notarized letter from the Appellant's father9 * An affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be the Appellant's close relative10 * An affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be another close relative, including a copy of the affiant's passport11 * A notarized letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, another close relative, along with a copy of his passport12 * A notarized letter from XXXX XXXX, another close relative13 [38] The RPD assigned little weight to the above-listed evidence. The RPD found credibility issues with respect to the letter from the Appellant's father, but the primary reason given for assigning little weight to the documents was their lack of probative value in addressing the various concerns that were raised during the hearing. [39] The Appellant argues that the RPD ignored the evidence because of its previous credibility findings, and that it erred by imposing strict evidentiary requirements on the Appellant's evidence, such as requiring the affiants to provide proof of identity and be cross-examined as witnesses before it would accept their statements. According to the Appellant, the RPD seemed intent to find fault with whatever was presented, rather than taking a fair and reasonable view of the evidence provided. [40] I have reviewed the Appellant's evidence and in my own independent assessment, I agree with the RPD's reasons for assigning little weight to the documents. Each of the documents will be addressed below. Letter from XXXX XXXX [41] The letter from XXXX XXXX describes that it conducted a community verification assessment of the Appellant. This involved the completion of a questionnaire as well as an oral interview in Somali in order to assess the Appellant's language, background, knowledge of geography, history, heritage, sociopolitical knowledge, clan lineage, and culture. The assessment was conducted by a Somali settlement counselor. In the course of this process, the organization was satisfied that the Appellant is a citizen of Somalia, born in the town of Jilib and belonging to the Ogaden clan. [42] According to the Appellant, the RPD did not consider this evidence as a result of its previous credibility findings. [43] There is no merit to this argument. The RPD clearly considered the evidence but found that it lacked sufficient probative value. The RPD correctly noted that an individual's knowledge of a country's language, heritage, or culture does not establish an individual's identity or nationality. By way of example, the RPD pointed out that there are many Somali speakers in Canada who may possess knowledge of Somalia, but that one does not need to be a Somali citizen in order to have that knowledge and speak the language. The RPD in fact accepted that the Appellant is an ethnic Somali, but found that the letter lacked probative value in establishing the Appellant's identity (with respect to his name and date of birth, for instance) and his Somali citizenship. I agree with the RPD that an individual's knowledge of Somali culture and language may be reliable indicators of ethnicity, but as to the Appellant's nationality and his personal identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, they are not conclusive. As such, the RPD was correct to assign little weight to the organization's letter for the purposes of assessing the Appellant's identity. Notarized letter from the Appellant's father [44] The notarized letter from the Appellant's father is very brief. It explains that the Appellant was born on XXXX XXXX, 1986 in Jilib, Somalia, and that both the author and the Appellant are Somali citizens belonging to the Ogaden clan. It goes on to say that the Appellant left Somalia in XXXX 2005 to Nairobi for fear of being recruited by Al-Shabaab. [45] The RPD noted a number of factors that led it to assign little weight to the letter: i) the lack of information as to how the notary confirmed the father's identity; ii) the lack of identity documentation attached to the affidavit; iii) the fact that the affiant was not made available to testify as a witness by teleconference; and iv) the inconsistency in the letter about the Appellant's reasons for leaving Somalia, as discussed further above. [46] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in citing the above factors in weighing the evidence. He argues that Somalia is a country without a functioning government and that the affidavit should not have been rejected due to the lack of identity documents supporting the author's identity. He claims that in order to testify by teleconference, his father would have had to travel to a place with a phone at night (due to the time difference), in a city that is generally insecure and hostile to Somali refugees. In any event, it is argued that discounting an affidavit simply because the witness is not available for cross-examination is contrary to the jurisprudence. [47] I do not agree that the RPD erred. It is worth considering the decision of Mr. Justice Grammond in Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 ("Magonza") in thinking about the matter of weighing evidence. In Magonza, Justice Grammond describes that the weight of evidence is a function of credibility and probative value. It is the persuasiveness of some evidence in comparison with other evidence, in the ultimate balancing of the evidence that tends to prove or disprove a relevant fact.14 [48] In the present case, the RPD had good reason to doubt the credibility of the father's evidence. The Appellant's father described that the Appellant had fled Somalia in fear of forced recruitment from Al-Shabaab, in contrast to the Appellant's BOC narrative and testimony. Faced with this issue, the RPD was not willing to accept the contents of the father's letter, especially given that it had no opportunity to test the credibility of the author's evidence through questioning. In terms of the probative value of the evidence - that is, the capacity of the evidence to establish the facts - the RPD correctly considered that there was nothing that allowed the RPD to be satisfied of the author's identity. The RPD was not imposing evidentiary requirements and ignoring the situation of Somali refugees, but rather it was assessing the probative value and credibility of the evidence in determining the weight to be assigned to the document. Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX [49] The affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX indicates that the Appellant is the author's "close relative", and that they are members of the Ogaden clan. The author indicates that she was present when the Appellant was born in Jilib in 1986. The affidavit was apparently sworn in Kenya. [50] The RPD noted that there was no identity documentation attached to the affidavit. This is despite the fact that the author claims to be a naturalized citizen of the USA. The affiant did not testify by teleconference and she provided no information about her whereabouts and contact with the Appellant in subsequent years. This gap in information was filled by the Appellant in his oral testimony, where he explained that he saw the affiant twice between his birth and his arrival in the USA. He explained that the affiant and her family came to Diif when he lived there, and that he saw her on another occasion when she traveled to Nairobi to see her sick mother. [51] The Appellant argues that the RPD was intent to find fault in the evidence and that the RPD erred because it drew a negative credibility finding from the omission of information about the affiant's later meetings with the Appellant. It is argued that the RPD impeached the document, and then proceeded to rely on it in order to impeach the Appellant's credibility. The Appellant states that the affidavit should be assessed for what it says rather than what it does not say. [52] There is no merit to this argument. The RPD did not draw any credibility inferences from the omission of information from the affidavit. Instead, the panel was merely pointing out how the affidavit did not contain information about any other contact that the affiant had with the Appellant after his birth. The RPD was not willing to give weight to the Appellant's own information on this issue, given his demonstrated lack of credibility as a witness. The RPD noted its credibility concerns about the Appellant's childhood in Somalia and his life in Nairobi, and found that the affidavit itself was not capable of addressing these concerns. The true issue here is one of probative value and the sufficiency of the evidence: the RPD was not satisfied that the affiant's presence during the Appellant's birth in 1986 and a couple of interactions over the next 25 years were sufficient to overcome the RPD's credibility concerns. I agree with the RPD's weighing of this evidence. Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX [53] The affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX has similar issues. This affidavit does contain a copy of the affiant's USA passport. It indicates that the Appellant is his close relative from the Ogaden clan, and that he was present during the Appellant's birth in Jilib in 1986. [54] Again, the RPD noted that there was no information about the affiant's subsequent contact with the Appellant after his birth. The affiant was not made available as a witness by teleconference. There was no information about the timing of the affiant's departure for the USA and whether he had any knowledge of the Appellant's life or whereabouts afterwards. Given the lack of information on relevant issues, the RPD found that the evidence was insufficient to overcome the issues of concern. The RPD gave the affidavit little weight. [55] The Appellant disputes the RPD's reluctance to give weight to the evidence on the basis that the affiant was not available for questioning. Despite the lack of detail about subsequent contact after the Appellant's birth, the Appellant submits that the affidavit achieved its purpose of establishing the Appellant's personal, clan, and national identity. [56] I agree entirely with the RPD's treatment of the evidence. As with the affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX, the lack of information in the affidavit was reason to give little weight to it. The RPD's specific concerns about the Appellant's whereabouts - his childhood in Somalia and his life in Kenya - were clearly set out in its reasons. The affidavit was not able to adequately address those concerns, and further testimony could not be elicited as the affiant was not a witness. The affidavit lacked probative value and ultimately was not sufficient to overcome the identity issues. There is no error here. Notarized letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX [57] The notarized letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX indicates that the affiant is the Appellant's close relative and that he visited the Appellant's family in 1986 after the Appellant was born. The affiant indicates that he left Somalia in 1991 and came to the USA as a refugee in 1992. [58] The RPD considered that this evidence was insufficient to overcome its concerns, given that the affiant left Somalia in 1991 and had no independent knowledge of the Appellant's circumstances since then. As the RPD had specific concerns about the Appellant's whereabouts after 1991, which were not addressed in the affidavit, the affidavit was given little weight. [59] On this finding, the Appellant argues that the RPD failed to assess the evidence individually, as the RPD rejected the affidavit because it was not sufficient to overcome its credibility concerns. [60] I do not agree that there is an error. The RPD did not fail to assess the evidence on its merits. The case law relied upon by the Appellant cautions the RPD against extending credibility findings in such a way that the remainder of the evidence that supports the claim is simply discredited and dismissed without meaningful consideration. That is not what the RPD did in this case. The RPD was correct to weigh the evidence, considering its credibility and probative value, and comparing it against the identity issues that had arisen. As described in Magonza, the weighing of evidence is a matter of assessing the persuasiveness of the evidence in comparison with the other issues and determining to what degree the evidence tends to prove or disprove the facts in question. In this case, the RPD determined that the notarized letter carried little weight because it could not speak to the Appellant's whereabouts after 1991. This was important, given the credibility issues that arose concerning the Appellant's history in Somalia, Kenya, and even his journey to the USA. Notarized letter from XXXX XXXX [61] The last piece of evidence is a notarized letter from XXXX XXXX, whose letter is particularly brief. He declares that he is a citizen of Somalia and a citizen of the USA through naturalization. He claims that he and the Appellant are close relatives, that the Appellant comes from the Ogaden clan, and that he was born in Jilib, Somalia in 1986. [62] Again, this document was not accompanied by any identity documents despite the author's status as a citizen of the USA. There was no information about when the author first met the Appellant, if at all. Accordingly, the RPD found that the letter was insufficient to overcome the credibility concerns regarding the Appellant's identity. It was given little weight. [63] The Appellant submits that as the letter was notarized in the USA, the notary would have been well aware of their legal obligations to confirm the author's identity before notarizing the document. He argues that the RPD's reasoning is demonstrative of its zeal to reject every piece of evidence provided by him. [64] I cannot agree with the Appellant's argument. The principal reason for assigning little weight to this document was its inability to speak to pertinent issues that arose in the claim. The author's bald assertion that the two are close relatives and that the Appellant was born in Somalia in 1986, without any further detail, was simply insufficient to overcome the credibility issues that arose in the claim. The absence of any identification did not assist in this matter. I agree with the RPD's finding that this document should be given only little weight in establishing the Appellant's identity. d) Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider the Appellant's sur place claim [65] Finally, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred by failing to consider the Appellant's sur place claim. This is entirely without merit. [66] The Appellant submits that the RPD concluded that the Appellant does not face risks in Somalia due to its credibility findings on other matters. The Appellant points to the documentary evidence in regard to individuals who are perceived to be supporters of the international community. As someone who has resided in the USA and Canada for a number of years, the Appellant asserts that he would be perceived by Al-Shabaab as a supporter of the international community. In addition, he submits that he would be at risk as he would be perceived as being a person of means, and that he would be at risk of forced recruitment. It is argued that the RPD ignored the documentary evidence in regard to these risks, and that the RPD's decision should therefore be set aside. [67] Contrary to the Appellant's argument, the RPD made no findings about the risks faced by the Appellant in Somalia. As it clearly set out in its reasons, the RPD did not need to go any further to analyze the merits of the claim, since the Appellant had failed to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities. [68] A refugee claimant's identity is an important and determinative issue. It is well-established in the jurisprudence that the RPD need not further analyze the merits of a claim if the claimant's identity is not established.15 Once the RPD determined that the Appellant had not established his identity, it did not need to address any other issues, including a potential sur place claim. CONCLUSION [69] As the Appellant has not demonstrated any error in the RPD's reasons, and as I agree with the decision on an independent assessment, I confirm the RPD's negative determination. The Appellant has not established his identity on a balance of probabilities. [70] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "Matthew Oh" Matthew Oh September 9, 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; see also Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-18), Diner, December 28, 2018; 2018 FC 1145. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at pp. 60-63. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 91. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at pp. 58-59. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at pp. 45 and 49. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 36. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 77. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 85. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 91. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 87. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 88-89. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 92-94. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 86. 14 Mazonga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 at paras 27-29. 15 Hodanu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 474 at para 17; see also Daniel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1049 at paras 28-30. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-08727 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 18 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français