TB4-01389

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-01389 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Redetermination of the Appeal Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision September 2, 2015 Date de la décision Panel L. Favreau Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Micheal Crane Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) claims to be a citizen of Somalia. He appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute a decision with its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for re-determination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he is a member of the Majerteen clan, a subset of the dominant clan in Puntland, northern Somalia. The dominant clan in south Somalia is the Hawiye clan. The Appellant was born and spent the early part of his life in Mogadishu, south Somalia. He and his family suffered persecution and displacement at the hands of the Hawiye clan and Al-Shabaab. He and his family were displaced to Kenya where they suffered robbery, deprivation and ill treatment. The Appellant was eventually able to leave Kenya and travel to the US where he made a refugee claim. His US claim was rejected. He later came to Canada and made a refugee claim. He fears returning to Somalia because his life would be at risk of persecution by Hawiye clan members and by Al-Shabaab. He further alleged that he cannot relocate to Bossaso in Puntland because he was born in South Somalia, and anyone born there cannot live in the North. [4] The Appellant's refugee claim was heard on September 30, 2013. In a decision of January 20, 2014, the RPD rejected the claim finding that the Appellant has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bossaso. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD made errors in rendering its determination that a viable IFA exists. The Appellant argues that the IFA in Bossaso is unreasonable in all of the circumstances. The Appellant appealed the RPD's decision to the RAD. In a decision of May 30, 2014, the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the RPD that a viable IFA exists for the Appellant in Bossaso. [6] The Appellant appealed the RAD's decision to the Federal Court. In a decision of May 26, 2015, The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes allowed the appeal, finding both decisions of the RPD and the RAD to be unreasonable and returned the matter to the RAD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. [7] The Court found that "the question [which must be determined] is whether a person born and raised in Mogadishu, even if that person is of the majority clan in Bossaso, can safely live and carry on his life in Bossaso or whether his 'southernness' will condemn him as an outsider, regardless as to clan affiliation"1 The Court went on to say that the Appellant's evidence that he will never be accepted is unequivocal while the documentary evidence in the record is equivocal. [8] Accordingly, the RAD has focused its analysis on the determinative issue of the IFA and, in particular, question whether the Appellant can safely carry on his life in Bossaso despite having been born and raised in Mogadishu. ROLE OF THE RAD [9] Counsel has not made submissions in regard to the role that the RAD plays in the review of an RPD decision. However, the RAD finds that the recent Federal Court decision, in Huruglica,2 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by the RAD to decisions of the RPD. Justice Phelan states in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the foregoing decision: [54] Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision.3 [55] In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an "overriding and palpable error".4 [10] While there has been some conflict in the case law from the Federal Court regarding the standard of review to be applied by the RAD when reviewing RPD decisions, Justice Martineau, in Alyafi, 5 has said that, in the face of this conflict, the Federal Court should allow the RAD to apply either approach as long as the question of the scope of the appellate review of the RPD's decisions has not been settled by a final judgment by the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. [11] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Deference will be afforded to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Viability of IFA in Bossaso Puntland [12] In assessing an IFA, the RPD must apply a two-pronged test cited in Rasaratnam6 suitably modified to take account of section 97 of the IRPA: 1) the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA. 2) moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there. [13] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that the Appellant has an IFA. The burden of proof rests with the Appellant to show that he does not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of a region for that purpose taking into account the Appellant's identity. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. An Appellant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or to undergo undue hardship in traveling there or staying there.7 [14] The RAD considered whether it would be unreasonable to expect the Appellant to relocate in the proposed IFA. The test for reasonableness is whether it would be unduly harsh to expect the Appellant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking status abroad, as per Thirunavukkarasu.8 This requires an evaluation of the conditions in the IFA as well as the Appellant or similarly situated persons. Thirunavukkarasu sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable.9 However, it is not enough for the Appellant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.10 [15] The RAD agrees with the RPD's findings that there is a reasonable and viable internal flight alternative available to the Appellant in Bossaso, Puntland. [16] The Appellant submits that he would not be accepted in Puntland or would be deported from Puntland if he attempted to seek refuge there. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred when it misapprehended the documentary evidence. He argues that the RPD accepted that many deportees from Puntland were from minority clans such as the Darod clan but determined that it was not likely the Appellant would be deported. The Appellant submits that the record is clear that he is a member of the Darod clan. The fact that the RPD accepted that Darods, not considered to have originally been from Puntland, were among the significant numbers of persons repeatedly deported by Puntland authorities contradicts the finding that this risk would not apply to the Appellant. The Appellant further argues that the Darod clan is actually the largest clan in Puntland, and, as such, the RPD was wrong to conclude that risk of deportation is limited to minority clans. [17] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. While it is problematic that the RPD misstated that the Darod clan is a minority clan, the RAD finds after its own review and assessment of the evidence, that it is clear that the RPD's reasons acknowledge that the Appellant is a member of the majority Majerteen clan, a sub-set of the Darod clan family in Puntland. Regardless, in light of the jurisprudence established in Huruglica,11 the RAD is required to conduct its own assessment of the corroborating documentary evidence. Although the RPD mischaracterized the Darod clan as a minority clan, there is no doubt that the RPD conducted its assessment with the understanding that the Appellant was a member of the majority clan regardless of the name he attributed to the clan. In addition, the RAD finds that the RPD's reasons do not reflect that it accepted that the Appellant's majority clan was among the significant numbers of persons repeatedly deported by Puntland authorities. [18] As noted by the RPD, the RAD notes that the documentary evidence cited states that the US State Department reported that Puntland officials deported Somalis from south and central Somalia in 2010, allegedly for contributing to insecurity in various cities. The cited evidence does not state that those deported included members of the majority clan. The RAD notes that the documentary evidence referred to actually states that members of the Darod clan do comprise a large number of the 104,000 internally displaced persons, but that they have access to protection under the xeer system of customary law.12 [19] In this regard, the RAD finds that the Appellant's argument fails. [20] The Appellant further submits that the documentary evidence in the record, relied upon by the RPD, states that the right to enter, return or reside in Puntland is limited to those who have ties to the territory through clan membership, typically to the Majerteen clan.13 He argues that, while it is clear that Majerteen clan membership is a prerequisite to be accepted into Puntland, more recent evidence indicates that previous residence in the region is also an important criterion and that both tribal and geographic connections were important in order to be allowed into Puntland. There is no evidential basis for departing from the conclusion in NM and others, that Somaliland and Puntland in general only accept back persons who were former residents of those regions and were members of locally based clans or sub clans.14 [emphasis added]. [21] Essentially, the Appellant is arguing that both criteria are required in order to be allowed into Puntland. The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence relied on, that the Appellant has taken this excerpt of the evidence out of context and has wrongly suggested that this evidence is more recent than the evidence relied upon by the RPD. [22] The RAD finds that the Appellant's inference, that that the evidence relied upon by him ought to be preferred because it is more recent, is without merit. The RAD notes that the evidence relied upon by the Appellant cites sources which seem to pre-date or at the very least, are similar in date to the sources of the evidence relied upon by the RPD. [23] Regardless, the RAD notes that a careful reading of the same evidence also states elsewhere in the document: ...that whether an internal flight argument exists in Puntland or Somaliland will depend on the circumstances of the individual case, including whether the individual is a member of a majority or minority clan and whether the individual originates from the territory to which they are seeking to relocate.15 [emphasis added] [24] The RAD finds the use of the word "and" in this context does not connote that both criteria are required but rather that there are multiple criteria which should be considered. The RAD is further supported in this assessment elsewhere in the same document in which it is stated that "authorities in Somaliland will only admit failed asylum seekers returning from European countries who originate from their territory or those who have close affiliations to the territory through clan membership."16[emphasis added] [25] The RAD notes that the Appellant has testified that some members of the Majerteen clan who had gone to Puntland had been sent back to the south because military personnel discovered they had southern accents. He testified that he learned this information from the news and from some of the individuals who had been returned from Puntland whom he had met in the Kenyan refugee camp. [26] The RAD finds that it can give little weight to the Appellant's testimony in this regard. The RAD notes that careful analysis of the documentary evidence does not provide any corroboration of the Appellant's testimony. The RAD notes that there are copious amounts of documents in the objective evidence from highly reputable sources which address the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and the removal of individuals from Puntland by authorities. These sources have a vested interest in reporting on the conditions in Somalia, reporting and highlighting information which may have an impact on the safe return of displaced individuals. The RAD finds it is reasonable to expect that, if there were news reports or personal accounts of individuals which documented the removal of majority clan members from Puntland because they were found to have a southern accent, this information would have been documented in the objective evidence. The RAD finds that the absence of any such information in the objective evidence undermines the Appellant's evidence in this regard. [27] The Appellant submits that, since he did not originate in Puntland, he could easily be regarded as an economic migrant seeking a better life. As a readily identifiable southerner through his accent, he could also face suspicions concerning his motivations and affiliations and his possible impact on the security in the area. These suspicions could certainly be justified in the eyes of the Puntland authorities. He also argues that he could be suspected of being a southern Al-Shabaab infiltrator. The Appellant argues that he could easily be identified as one of these groups, those of whom have been repeatedly deported in significant numbers by the Puntland authorities. [28] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The RAD agrees with the RPD that the Appellant's fear of being deported to southern Somalia is highly speculative. The Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be seen as an economic migrant, belonging to Al-Shabaab or being a security risk by the Puntland authorities on the basis of having lived in the south of Somalia. As previously found by the RAD, there is no basis in the objective evidence for believing that his southern accent would lead to his denial of entry or deportation from Puntland. [29] The RAD notes that, while it is true that many internally displaced persons in Puntland belong to the Darod clan or majority clan, the documentary evidence does not, on a balance of probabilities, establish that deportees from Puntland to southern Somalia include members of the Darod clan, or, specifically, the Darod clan's sub-clan, the Majerteen. [30] The Appellant has alleged that he fears persecution by members of the Hawiye clan. The RAD notes that the documentary evidence17 shows that Puntland is located in the northeast of Somalia and has declared itself an autonomous region within the territory of Somalia in 1998; however, officially it remains a part of Somalia. Based on the documentary evidence,18 Puntland is "very much a clan-based administration, primarily based on the Majerteen clan". The documentary evidence19 shows that the Darod is a clan family or federation dominant in Puntland. The Darod are commonly divided into three major groups referred to as Ogaden, Marehan and Harti. The Harti are composed of the Majerteen who now are found in Puntland mainly, and the Dulbahante and Warsangeli who mainly live within the borders of Somaliland. Puntland almost entirely overlaps with the Majerteen clan family. Puntland is a form of "ethno-state", founded on the unity of the Harti clan. The Appellant fears members of the Hawiye clan. The documentary evidence20 shows that the Hawiye clan can be found in central and southern Somalia. The same document adds that the Hawiye are not as present in the other areas, and would generally be content with control over South Central Somalia. The RAD finds that the Hawiye clan has no authority or control in Puntland and, as the Appellant is a member of the majority clan, he would have the protection of his clan. [31] In light of the evidence in this record, including the documentary evidence, the RAD finds that there is no serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted, or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be subjected personally to a risk to life, or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment by members of the Hawiye clan in Bossaso, located in Puntland, Somalia. [32] The Appellant also fears persecution at the hands of Al-Shabaab. The Appellant testified at the RPD that Al-Shabaab will seek to recruit him. He testified he will refuse their efforts and because of his refusal, he will be killed. [33] The RAD notes that the documentary evidence in the record indicates that the Al-Shabaab operates predominately in south and central Somalia; however, a UN independent expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia reported that: ...although Puntland remains relatively secure, there have been 'waves of violence and assassinations' targeting businessmen, elders, religious leaders, judicial officials, and law enforcement officials. Some of this violence is attributed to clan-related conflict or to the Atam militia, which is alleged to have close ties to Al-Shabaab. The United States (US) Department of State has also documented political killings in Puntland committed by Al-Shabaab and other extremist militant groups in 2010.21 [34] While it is true there are reports of violence perpetrated by Al-Shabaab in Puntland, the Appellant has not established that he fits the profile of those individuals targeted by Al-Shabaab or why he would be personally targeted. The RAD finds there is no serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted, or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be subjected personally to a risk to life, or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment by Al-Shabaab in Bossaso, located in Puntland, Somalia. [35] Although the Appellant alleges that there is high risk of harm in the IDP settlements, the RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his argument that he would be subjected to this risk as a member of the majority clan. Therefore, the RAD finds that it is not objectively unreasonable for the Appellant to safely reside, without risk of harm from the alleged perpetrators, in Bossaso, located in Puntland, Somalia. [36] The RPD found that the documentary evidence22 establishes that only the minority clans are seriously at risk of being deprived of basic human rights in Bossaso, Puntland and that, given the conditions in Bossaso, it would not be unreasonable for the Appellant to relocate there. [37] The Appellant submits that an IFA in Puntland is unreasonable for him in all of the circumstances and therefore fails to satisfy the second prong of the test for an adequate IFA. [38] The Appellant argues that, given the RPD has determined that members of the Darod clan are at risk of deportation, it is an error for the RPD to determine that it is only the minority clans that are seriously at risk of being deprived of basic human rights. The Appellant argues that this determination of the RPD is, at least in part, contradicted by the documentary evidence offered in support of the findings of the RPD. [39] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The RAD again notes that, although the RPD wrongly referred to the Darod clan as a minority clan, the RPD clearly found that the Appellant is a member of the majority clan in Puntland and did not determine that the Appellant's clan was at risk of deportation. The RAD's review and assessment of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Appellant clearly supports the RPD's finding that the risk of deprivation of basic human rights is predominately within IDP settlements among minority clans. The Appellant is a member of the majority clan, a fact repeatedly stressed by the Appellant in his pleadings. The documentary evidence relied upon by the Appellant does not support his assertion that members of the majority clan face deprivation of human rights. The Appellant quotes the following excerpt from the documentary evidence: The Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the human rights of IDPs finds that, as in Somaliland, IDPs in Puntland may lack adequate or secure shelter and property rights, access to basic services (including health care, potable water and sanitation), opportunities for education and basic physical security23 [40] The Appellant argues that he would clearly be an IDP if he returned to Puntland because he is a person that was born and raised in south Somalia and has not been in Somalia for many years. The Appellant argues that many of the IDPs are Darods and, despite some measure of protection afford by xeer, they face a long list of deprivations of basic human rights. The Appellant refers to the documentary evidence which states that the conditions in the IDP settlements are deemed deplorable. The Appellant argues that: "the evidence does not say that it is predominately minorities that are suffering from deplorable conditions only that 'many' of the increased incidences of gender-based violence have taken place in their settlements."24 [41] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. The RAD's review and assessment of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Appellant does not support the Appellant's assertion that "the 'evidence' does not say that it is predominately minorities suffering from deplorable conditions".25 The RAD notes that the excerpt relied upon by the Appellant was preceded by the following statement: According to the UNHCR, in the absence of clan protection and support, IDPs belonging to non-majority groups are vulnerable to human rights violations, including "limited access to education and health services, vulnerability to sexual exploitation or rape, forced labour, perpetual threat of eviction, and destruction or confiscation of assets" (ibid. 5 May 2010, 35).26 [42] The RAD finds that the objective evidence clearly states that it is the members of the minority clans that predominantly suffer from poor conditions. The RAD finds that, given the Appellant's majority clan status and the access to the protections of the xeer, on a balance of probabilities, he would not be vulnerable to human rights violations and that the living conditions he would personally face on his return to Puntland, while not ideal, are reasonable under the circumstances. [43] The Appellant argues that, without access to family in Puntland, it would be impossible for him to live there and that there is no one he can turn to for support in obtaining employment, housing and welfare to provide for his basic needs. [44] The RAD acknowledges the Appellant's concerns regarding the economic situation that he might face upon return to Bossaso, located in Puntland, Somalia. However, the RAD notes that Thirunavukkarasu27 sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable.28 As previously stated, it is not enough for the claimant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.29 A distinction must be maintained between the reasonableness of an IFA and humanitarian and compassionate considerations. While it is very likely that the Appellant would be better off in Canada- physically, economically and emotionally-than in a safe place in his own country, it is not a factor to consider in assessing the reasonableness of the IFA.30 [45] The RAD finds that the documentary evidence31 shows that Puntland is located in the northeast of Somalia and has declared itself an autonomous region within the territory of Somalia in 1998; however, officially it remains a part of Somalia. Based on the documentary evidence,32 Puntland is "very much a clan-based administration, primarily based on the Majerteen clan". The documentary evidence33 shows that the Darod is a clan family or federation dominant in Puntland. The Darod is a family of clans divided into three major groups referred to as Ogaden, Marehan and Harti. The Harti are composed of the Majerteen, the Appellant's clan, who now are primarily found in Puntland. Puntland almost entirely overlaps with the Majerteen clan family. Puntland is a form of "ethno-state", founded on the unity of the Harti clan. [46] The RAD notes that, while it is true there has been an increase in political tension and insecurity in Puntland, the Somali Family Services (SFS), an organization supporting civil society, youth, women and other marginalized groups, nevertheless reports that Puntland's relative peace and stability has allowed for the development of basic political and administrative institutions as well as basic social and educational services.34 The RAD further notes that the UK Border Agency, Operational Guidance Note35 on Somalia states: Large parts of northern Somalia are in general relatively safe regardless of clan membership. Somaliland and Puntland remain generally safe despite some armed violence and targeted assassinations. In other parts of Somalia it is unlikely that any Somali belonging to one of the major clan-families - their immediate clan groups or associated sub clans - would be able to demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of ill-treatment on return on the basis of their clan affiliation alone. However each case should be given careful consideration on its individual circumstances including whether effective protection is available and if internal relocation is available. [47] As noted, the Appellant belongs to the majority clan in Puntland, and the RAD finds that, given his membership in the dominant clan, he will, on a balance of probabilities, not face ill treatment. Although the Appellant argues that he is from the south and that he has not been in Somalia in many years, he has not provided persuasive evidence that he would be unfamiliar with cultural issues and norms in Puntland. Therefore, the RAD is satisfied that it would be reasonable for the Appellant to adapt to new surroundings in Bossaso. [48] The RAD agrees with the RPD and finds, on a balance of probabilities, that there is not a serious possibility of persecution of the Appellant in Bossaso, and his removal to Bossaso would not subject him personally to a risk to his life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. [49] Once the issue of an internal flight alternative is raised, the onus is on the refugee claimant to show that the option does not exist, by establishing that either of the two tests cited in Rasaratnam36 criteria is not met. The Federal Court of Appeal, in Thirunavukkarasu, stated that an applicant need only show that there is a serious possibility of being persecuted in the new location or that his removal to Puntland, Somalia would not subject him personally to a risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. The RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to show that the IFA option is not available to him. [50] The RAD finds after its own review and assessment of the evidence that, notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant was born and raised in Mogadishu and has a southern accent, given he is a member of the majority clan in Bossaso, he can safely live and carry on his life in Bossaso and that his "southernness" will not condemn him as an outsider. (emphasis added) The RAD finds that the Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution there and also finds that his removal to Bossaso would not subject him personally to a risk to his life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. CONCLUSION [51] The RAD agrees with the RPD and finds, based on the totality of the evidence, that a reasonable IFA exists for the Appellant and that the Appellant has not established that there is a serious possibility that he would be persecuted in the IFA or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, or face a risk to his life, or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the IFA. [52] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD. (signed) "L. Favreau" L. Favreau September 2, 2015 Date 1 Federal Court Judgment, Received May 26, 2015, p. 3. 2 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 3 Ibid., para 54. 4 Ibid., para 55. 5 Alyafi, Aghiad v. M.C.I. (F.C. No. IMM-1091-14), Martineau, October 8, 2014, 2014 FC 952. 6 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991, [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710. 7 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993; [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.), at 596-599. 8 Ibid., at 596-599. 9 Ranganathan: M.C.I. v. Ranganathan, Rohini (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000; [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.). 10 Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 7, at 596-599. 11 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 12 RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 14.2. 13 Ibid., item 14.2. 14 Ibid., item 1.7, para. 3.1. 15 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 1.7 para. 2.4.7. 16 Ibid., item 1.7, para. 2.4.8 17 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 14.2. 18 Ibid., item 14.2. 19 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), items 2.3 and 13.10. 20 Ibid., items 2.3 and 13.10. 21 Ibid., item 14.2. 22 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 1.7 p. 13. 23 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 14.2. 24 Appellant Record, Memorandum of Argument, p. 31, para. 3.13. 25 Appellant Record, Memorandum of Argument, p. 31, para. 3.13. 26 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 14.2. 27 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.). 28 Ranganathan v. Canada, (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.). 29 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.). 30 Ranganathan v. Canada, (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.). 31 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 14.2. 32 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 14.2. 33 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia, (May 3, 2013), items 2.3 and 13.10. 34 RPD's Record, NDP for Somalia (May 3, 2013), item 14.2. 35 Ibid., item 1.7. 36 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991; [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.28.07 (June 5, 2015) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-01389