TB8-12028

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-12028 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision 15 September 2020 Date de la décision Panel S. Thompson Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal David P. Yerzy Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Somalia, is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated September 18, 2018, refusing his claim for refugee protection. [2] For the following reasons, I allow this appeal and substitute a finding that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. BACKGROUND OF APPEAL The Appellant's claim, the RPD's decision, and the Appellant's arguments before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [3] The Appellant alleged a serious forward-looking risk of persecution at the hands of Al- Shabab in Somalia. In 2015 Al-Shabab attempted to forcibly recruit him, after which he went into hiding while his mother arranged his escape from Somalia. On December 6, 2015, while in hiding at home, a friend visited the Appellant. Upon leaving the house the Appellant's friend was shot by suspected Al-Shabab members, whom the Appellant believes mistook the friend for himself. [4] On XXXX XXXX, 2015 the Appellant fled Somalia and travelled to the United States of America (US), travelling via Kenya, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, and Mexico. On March 31, 2016, the Appellant made an asylum claim in the US. He was detained on XXXX XXXX, 2016. On XXXX XXXX, 2016 he was released from detention after supplying a fraudulent Somali birth certificate. On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the Appellant entered Canada irregularly in Manitoba and claimed refugee status shortly thereafter. [5] The RPD refused the Appellant's claim, finding he failed to establish his identity. The RPD found the Appellant was not credible ("open and honest") about his escape from Somalia. It found the fact that he gave fraudulent documents to the US authorities to obtain his release from detention undermined his credibility. [6] Before the RAD, the Appellant submits the RPD made the following errors: - Erred in its assessment of live testimony from the witness XXXX XXXX XXXX, by "impos[ing] too onerous a burden on the witness to establish the Appellant's constant whereabouts from birth to the present"; - Erred in its assessment of his identity and ignored identity evidence "from three people who testified as to [his] identity"; - Made a factual mistake by confusing the Appellant's sister with his cousin; - Made speculative credibility and implausibility findings, by questioning whether the notary verified the identity of the affiant XXXX, and in its evaluation of what the smuggler should have told the Appellant; - Erred in its treatment of some of the Appellant's corroborating evidence (specifically, the US asylum determination, the letter from the Somali community of Ohio, statement from XXXX and XXXX XXXX and the letter from Dejinta Beesha in Toronto); - Erred in finding the Appellant's use of a fraudulent birth certificate in the US undermined his credibility; and - Erred when it referred to the Appellant's failure to obtain copies of Mexican documents submitted to US authorities, as this was an irrelevant consideration. [7] The Appellant has not asked for any documents to admitted as new evidence in this appeal. Nor has he asked for me to convene an oral hearing of this matter. ANALYSIS [8] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 I will apply the correctness standard of review after independently assessing the record in order to determine whether the RPD erred. I will only show deference to the RPD's credibility assessment or to its weighing of the oral evidence in situations where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage. If I find the RPD had a particular advantage, my reasons will explain why. [9] My independent assessment of the evidence before me includes: the records prepared by the RPD and the Appellant; an audio recording of the Appellant's RPD hearing on April 13, 2018; a transcript of the afore-mentioned hearing; and documents contained in the current compilation of the Board's National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia. The Appellant's identity The Appellant's travel through Mexico and the loss of his documents [10] First, the statements at paragraph 13 of the RPD's Reasons make no findings of fact or mixed law and fact regarding the absence of any documents the Appellant may have been issued while travelling through Mexico en route to the US. They are irrelevant to its determination that the Appellant failed to establish his identity with acceptable evidence. I will not, therefore, address the submissions at paragraphs 105 through 110 of the Appellant's memorandum. Appellant's admission of disclosure of fraudulent documents to U.S. immigration authorities [11] Second, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's admission that he disclosed a fraudulent birth certificate to US immigration authorities undermines his credibility. Although the Appellant's then counsel asserted that "he clearly [was] not relying on that as part of his identity"2, there is some merit to the RPD's finding that the Appellant's admission shows not only "that he [had] access to fraudulent documents while he was in detention"3 but also shows his willingness to lie to US authorities in order to obtain release.4 [12] However, the Appellant's submission that his conduct in so doing is only part of his claim and should be weighed against his candour "about the authenticity of the document and his reasons for submitting it"5 also warrants consideration. [13] Having independently assessed the Appellant's admission, I find the admission does not fatally undermine the Appellant's credibility on the issue of his personal identity. I make this finding because the Appellant's testimony about his personal details is largely consistent with the content of his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative and the other evidence he disclosed in support of his claim. [14] Third, the Appellant submits the RPD erred by making a series of speculative findings. I will address each of these findings in turn. Appellant's interactions with smuggler who arranged his travel to North America [15] One of those findings concerned instructions from the smuggler who helped the Appellant travel to North America. The Appellant submits the RPD took issue "with the smuggler's failure to teach the Appellant [...] the specific European country that issued" the passport he used to travel, and in so doing erred by speculating "about how this or any other smuggler should behave".6 [16] The RPD found it "unlikely that a smuggler would not provide explicit instructions to someone who is traveling across international borders with a fraudulent document."7 The RPD found it reasonable that "the smuggler would want to avoid detention if they were truly traveling together" and drew a negative credibility inference from what it called the Appellant's failure to be "open and honest about his travel out of Somalia."8 [17] The Appellant's BOC narrative is largely silent about his travel from Kenya to the USA, beyond stating briefly that "[a]rrangements were made for [him] to leave Kenya."9 During the hearing the Appellant testified the smuggler, named XXXX, showed him the passport used to transport the Appellant overseas, and that this passport had his name but someone else's photo in it. The RPD questioned the Appellant about the nationality of the passport, and did not appear to take issue with his testimony that he didn't know what country had issued the passport he used.10 [18] In my independent assessment, the RPD erred in drawing a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's testimony on this point. There was simply no basis in the evidence for the RPD's adverse credibility finding: the Appellant's testimony was clear and straightforward; the panel did not take issue with his testimony during the hearing; and the RPD did not cite any objective evidence to support her statements about what the smuggler was or was not likely to do. The affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX [19] The Appellant submits also that the RPD findings concerning the affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX are speculative. According to the Appellant, the RPD erred "by relying on negative inferences" to give little weight to her supporting letter "because of what it doesn't say in terms of any ID that XXXX [sic] presented."11 [20] The RPD found that XXXX XXXX XXXX affidavit had "minimal probative value" because it was "not accompanied by any document to establish the identity of the affiant" and also because the letter provided "insufficient evidence" to explain how XXXX could "confirm the [Appellant's] allegations".12 [21] In line with the rationale stated at paragraph [29] of these reasons, I agree with the Appellant that XXXX affidavit should not have been dismissed simply because it was not accompanied by a copy of her identity document. Nor do I agree with the RPD that XXXX affidavit fails to explain how she knows details of the Appellant's allegations. The affidavit states that XXXX and the Appellant "were neighbors [sic] and friends in Jilib town since [their] childhood, in Jilib Somalia". [22] Also, in my independent assessment, a plain reading of the affidavit suggests that the affiant's personal knowledge is the source of its content. I therefore give the document some weight for the purpose of establishing the Appellant's personal identity. The whereabouts of the witness XXXX XXXX XXXX during her testimony to the RPD [23] Another RPD finding the Appellant calls speculative concerns his half-sister XXXX whereabouts during her testimony by telephone. He also submits the RPD erred in its treatment of a support letter authored by XXXX, giving it too little weight.13 [24] According to the RPD, even though the phone number used to contact the Appellant's half-sister "had a prefix of 252 - the country code for Somalia," this was not confirmation "that the recipient of the call was in fact in Somalia" since "[a] cell phone can be used anywhere in the world".14 [25] Having independently assessed the evidence, I find the RPD erred by allowing this subjective concern to inform its assessment of this witness's testimony, as this concern could not logically have been informed by what actually took place during the hearing. [26] Despite the RPD's assertion that the instability of the telephone network meant that "the interpreter was unable to hear or understand [the witness's] responses", the transcript of the hearing shows XXXX testified that at the time of the hearing she lived in Jilib, Somalia, having moved there in XXXX of 2018, and that she last lived with the Appellant in 2015. This testimony was given before the network difficulties that caused the telephone line to become inaudible: MEMBER: Okay. So, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? WITNESS 1: Yes. MEMBER: Okay. Where are you right now? WITNESS 1: Now I am in Jilib. MEMBER: And, where were you before? WITNESS 1: Buale, Buale, Buale. MEMBER: Did you live in Jilib before? INTERPRETER: She said after I was married in 2003 that is when I moved from Jilib and went to Buale now I came back to live in Jilib on XXXX 2018. MEMBER: Did you live with XXXX XXXX in Jilib? INTERPRETER: We used to live with XXXX together she said in Jilib, but the last time she added that I have XXXX was 2015.15 [27] The witness's testimony that she was in Jilib at the time of the hearing was given under oath, and nothing about the content of her testimony contradicted this statement. In short, I agree with the Appellant that there was "no valid reason"16 for the RPD to doubt the witness was in Somalia as she testified she was. I therefore give her testimony some weight for the purpose of establishing the Appellant's personal identity. The supporting letter written by XXXX XXXX XXXX [28] The RPD also found a supporting letter from XXXX was "insufficient to establish" the Appellant's identity because it was "not notarized and [was] not accompanied by anything to identify its author."17 [29] I accept the Appellant's submission that support letters need not be notarized to be considered as evidence in RPD hearings. I also accept that "there was nothing unusual about the fact that" she "lacked an ID to attach to her statement", in light of country evidence in the current NDP for Somalia which states that few citizens of Somalia are able to obtain the passports and national identity cards that have been issued by the country's transitional federal government since December 2013.18 [30] I have examined the letter,19 which is undated, and I note that its English-language translation is not certified with reference to any objective authority. I note, however, that it bears the same telephone number that was apparently used to contact the witness during the RPD hearing, and also that the details it contains about the relationship between XXXX and the Appellant - that she is his sister "on [their] father's side" - corroborates not only XXXX testimony20 about her relationship to the Appellant but also the Appellant's testimony about his relationship to XXXX21 -- in short, his personal identity. I therefore give the letter some weight for that specific purpose. Apparent confusion of the Appellant's paternal cousin XXXX with his half-sister XXXX [31] Fourth, I reject the Appellant's submission that the RPD made a factual mistake by confusing the Appellant's father's cousin, XXXX XXXX XXXX, for his half-sister XXXX XXXX XXXX. [32] While the sub-heading that immediately precedes paragraph 14 of the RPD Reasons names XXXX, the text of paragraph 14 refers to the Appellant's "sister [...] currently living in Jilib, Somalia."22 These details are consistent with the covering letter of the Appellant's disclosure to the RPD dated April 3, 2018, which states that "his half sister [sic], XXXX, has moved to Jilib, Somalia".23 [33] As well, the transcript of the audio recording of the Appellant's April 13, 2018 RPD hearing shows that the RPD panel was advised shortly after the start of the hearing that although Hawa would not be able to testify, the Appellant's sister XXXX would be contacted as a witness during the hearing.24 When the witness testified by telephone, she identified herself as the Appellant's half-sister XXXX: COUNSEL: Well, about the sister now. MEMBER: Okay. Let's call her. Is she going to be available? CLAIMANT: Yes, I believe so. MEMBER: We are on the record. WITNESS 1: Hello. MEMBER: Hello. This is the Immigration and Refugee Board calling about XXXX XXXX XXXX. What is your name? WITNESS 1: XXXX XXXX XXXX (ph). MEMBER: And, how do you know XXXX XXXX XXXX? WITNESS 1: XXXX XXXX XXXX is the brother from my father's side.25 [34] In my independent assessment, the evidence shows the RPD panel was aware that the person who testified over the phone identified themselves as the Appellant's half-sister. Although the RPD erred by using the wrong name in the sub-heading that preceded its discussion of XXXX testimony, in light of the other evidence I find that this minor error of substitution does not indicate that the RPD confused the persons of XXXX and XXXX in its analysis of the evidence. The statutory declaration and testimony of the witness XXXX XXXX XXXX to the RPD [35] Fifth, the Appellant submits the RPD's finding that the Appellant and the witness XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to establish that they were both in Jilib raised the standard of proof beyond the "balance of probabilities" threshold applicable to refugee claims.26 The Appellant submits further that in so doing, the RPD made "perverse" findings that "ignore the evidence and rely on speculation", in addition to unreasonably "expect[ing] the witness to [have kept] tabs on the Appellant during his entire life."27 [36] The Appellant also provided a statutory declaration from XXXX XXXX XXXX28 dated April 3, 2018. According to this declaration, Mr. XXXX and the Appellant "first met in Jilib in 2007 ... at a place where football games were shown on a TV" and that "[a]fter meeting we would see each other most weeks for about a year at this place" before it was closed by al-Shabaab in 2008. [37] Mr. XXXX statutory declaration states further that in 2012 he and the Appellant began seeing one another regularly as he (Mr. XXXX) would bring produce from his family's farm to a shop in Jilib owned by the Appellant's mother once a month. Mr. XXXX says that he and the Appellant last saw one another in Somalia in "the latter part of 2015" before reconnecting in Canada in 2017 "at a Somali restaurant Gala Canada".29 [38] I have reviewed the parts of the RPD hearing transcript concerning both the Appellant's testimony about his relationship with Mr. XXXX30, and Mr. XXXX testimony about his relationship with the Appellant.31 In my independent assessment the statutory declaration is consistent with both testimonies, particularly as concerns the Appellant and Mr. XXXX interactions with one another from 2012 onward, when the latter brought his family's produce to Jibril to sell in the Appellant's mother's shop. [39] The RPD acknowledged the testimony of XXXX and the Appellant "was generally consistent" but found his testimony that he had known the Appellant since the age of 10 to 12 years "at best, place[d] [Dahir] in Somalia at that time" inadequate to "establish [the Appellant's] nationality or citizenship."32 [40] Having read the transcript excerpts of the Appellant's testimony about his relationship with XXXX, as well as XXXX subsequent testimony, I agree with the RPD that it was largely consistent. I also find, however, that the consistency and reliability of XXXX testimony about his knowledge of the Appellant's personal identity is further reinforced by XXXX statutory declaration. I therefore give XXXX evidence weight in establishing the Appellant's personal identity. Supporting letters: Somali Community Association of Ohio; Dejinta Beesha Somali Multi-Service Centre [41] Sixth, I have considered the Appellant's submission that the RPD wrongly dismissed two supporting letters disclosed in support of his claim, while completely ignoring certain other documents that corroborated his professed identity as a national of Somalia. [42] According to the Appellant, the RPD erred when it dismissed the letter from the Somali Community Association of Ohio.33 He submits not only that the RPD should have called the persons named in the letter as witnesses, but also that its expectation that these witnesses could have provided notarized letters was unreasonable, as "[t]heir testimony does not need to be notarized to be considered and given weight."34 [43] The RPD found "[t]here was insufficient evidence before the panel that would indicate the probative value of the testimony" of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the two persons who, according to the letter, confirmed the Appellant's identity for the purposes of the letter. The RPD observed that as one was a US citizen and the other a permanent resident of that country the Appellant could have "presented [...] identity documents from these individuals", who could also themselves have provided the Appellant with notarized statements. [44] The Federal Court of Canada opines "that evidence purporting to establish the identity of a claimant should provide sufficient information about the author and the criteria on which that identity was determined in order to allow decision-makers and reviewing Courts to assess the reasonableness of the evidence and to assign it proper weight."35 [45] I have read the letter from the Somali Community Association of Ohio in light of this statement from the Court. In my independent assessment, the letter is inadequate to support the Appellant's submissions about his personal and national identity. While the letter states the Appellant's professed birth date, it discloses nothing about how the Appellant and XXXX and XXXX know one another, or the source of their knowledge of the Appellant's national identity. I give this letter no weight for the purpose of confirming the Appellant's personal and national identity. [46] Concerning the letter from the Dejinta Beesha Somali Multi-Service Centre, the RPD found the letter failed to "establish his personal identity nor does it establish his nationality".36 The Appellant submits the RPD erred by "not evaluating the letter in terms of its actual purpose"37 and that "[i]n the absence of any serious credibility concerns there is no reason to doubt this evidence which does go to the issue of identity."38 [47] I have independently assessed the Dejinta Beesha Services letter in light of both the guidance from the Federal Court quoted at paragraph [44] of these reasons, and also an August 2018 Response to Information Request (RIR) in the current NDP for Somalia about various Somali-Canadian associations in Canada. The RIR lists practices commonly used by similar organizations to help refugee claimants establish their Somali nationality, including (but not limited to): - Assessing the claimant's accent or Somali language dialect; - Asking the claimant questions about Somalia, or asking them to complete a questionnaire, to get details such as (but not limited to) the claimant's name, their parents' names, their date and place of birth, their places of residence, their clan and sub-clan, their region of origin, and Somali geography, language and culture generally; - Requiring the claimant to provide contact information for two witnesses to confirm the claimant's identity and corroborate their town of origin. Some organizations require the witnesses to be known Somali community members who are either citizens or permanent residents of Canada, and to have been known to the claimant either in Somalia or in Canada; - Reaching out to contacts from other regions in Somalia to corroborate the claimant's account of their identity with people from their region or clan in Somalia; and - Helping the claimant to find and contact relatives and acquaintances who knew them in Somalia. Some of the organizations canvassed in the RIR issue letters stating that the claimant's identity was corroborated by two witnesses.39 [48] As well, I reject the RPD's finding that the letter failed to give details of how it determined the Appellant's "identity, nationality and citizenship". The letter describes Dejinta Beesha's identity verification process and speaks to the outcome of that process concerning the Appellant: Dejinta Beesha Board of Director Policy committee establish verification assessment policy and programme for nationality and citizenship refugees coming from Horn of Africa. We are writing this letter in support to our client MR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a new refugee claimant from Somalia CLIENT ID -XXXXand member of recent arrived refugee's community that we assist in our centre. ... Dejinta Beesha community verification assessment policy for undocumented refugee claimant from Somali origin ... follows a rigorous process of CVA to determine client Nationality and Citizenship. The client must fill a form of questionnaire for community verification assessment (CVA) in Somali language script as well as oral interview through the Somali mother tongue [on] language, background, geography, history, heritage, socio political, clan lineage and culture of Somalia from a professional Somali settlement counsellor. DEJINTA BEESHA after reviewing the outcome of the community verification assessment questionnaire and the interview we confirm the client XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX he is Citizen and Nationality of Federal Republic of Somalia. In the oral interview session the client attest he born In the district Town of JILIB in the southern region of MIDDLE JUBBA of Somalia and belong[s to the] DIR clan from Somali clan structure.40 [49] Having independently assessed the letter, I agree with the RPD's finding that the Dejinta Beesha letter "makes no statement to indicate that there was any independent interview with anyone to confirm the facts as told by the [Appellant]."41 [50] I note, however, that Dejinta Beesha carried out the first two listed practices commonly used by Somali organizations referenced in the RIR to verify the personal and national identities of claimants. [51] The fact that Dejinta Beesha did not use certain other practices, such as interviewing third parties and contacting references in Somalia should not, in my opinion, by grounds to discredit the aspects of the identity verification exercise that it did conduct. I find the RPD erred in relying on the absence of "any independent interview with anyone to confirm the facts as told by the claimant"42 to question the reliability of the Dejinta Beesha letter. [52] This is particularly true since the RPD was itself able to interview the Appellant's identity witness XXXX, who testified that he knew the Appellant from Jilib, Somalia - testimony the RPD acknowledged was consistent with the Appellant's own testimony about how he and XXXX knew each other. Given this, I do not think the Dejinta Beesha letter's reliability suffers from the lack of independent third-party corroboration of the Appellant's information. [53] I also agree with the Appellant that the RPD did not give him a chance to address any of its concerns with the provenance of the information in the letter. The hearing transcript does not indicate the RPD panel asked the Appellant any questions about Dejinta Beesha's identity verification process or the interview that it conducted with him. [54] In light of the foregoing, I find that the Dejinta Beesha identity verification letter is reliable and I give the letter weight for the purpose of establishing the Appellant's identity as a national of Somalia. Conclusion on identity [55] In the unique circumstances of the present appeal, it is my independent assessment that the testimony of the Appellant's witness, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX, did go some way towards establishing the Appellant's personal identity. Given the credibility of the Appellant's witness, and the consistency between his testimony and the Appellant's testimony, I find on a balance of probabilities that the presumption of the truthfulness of the testimony of the Appellant and his witness XXXX has not been rebutted. [56] The affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX and the letter and oral testimony of the Appellant's half-sister XXXX XXXX XXXX also help to establish the Appellant's personal identity. Both parties state they knew the Appellant during his childhood in Jilib, Somalia prior to his arrival in Canada. I find, based on the foregoing, that the Appellant's personal identity has been established, and that he is who he says he is. [57] I also consider that section 106 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Rule 11 of the RPD Rules recognize the inherent difficulty in obtaining the usual identity documents from countries without a stable civil administration. It is for this reason that those who claim against such countries, including Somalia, are given the opportunity to establish their national identity through other means. [58] In the unique circumstances of this particular case, I find the Appellant's national identity is established both by his testimony and by the letter from the Dejinta Beesha, absent any indication that the identity verification process used by the organization is unreliable or the information gleaned from that process is not credible in light of the other evidence given by the Appellant about his identity. [59] In my independent assessment, the Appellant's identity as a national of Somalia is established and I find the Appellant is a citizen of Somalia. [60] Due to ongoing armed conflict, terrorism and insecurity, neither state protection nor a viable internal flight alternative is available in Somalia.43 The country conditions evidence shows Somalia's transitional federal government's limited capacity to enforce law and order in the country. [61] This situation pertains throughout Somalia: much of the south-central part of the country is controlled by the terrorist group Al-Shabaab, but for a few parts of the capital Mogadishu. Although the city is controlled by Somalia's transitional federal government, it is subjected to terrorist attacks and politically motivated targeted killings occur there on an almost daily basis.44 [62] The government of Somalia's inability to provide basic security to its citizens leaves those citizens vulnerable to political violence and armed conflict.45 It also means there is little to no accountability in Somalia for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law caused by this conflict.46 The state is also unable to protect civilians whose lives are at risk and who are forced to flee violence.47 [63] Given the objective country evidence suggests no Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) or adequate state protection, and as the Appellant's testimony is presumptively true, I find he has also discharged the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that he faces a serious risk of persecution if he returns to Somalia. [64] The proper remedy is to substitute a positive finding for that of the tribunal below. CONCLUSION [65] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA. (signed) Sybil Thompson S. Thompson 15 September 2020 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, p. 30 at lines 36-42. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 9 at para. 25. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, pp. 9-10 at para. 27. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 93 at para. 103. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 82 at paras. 36-39. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 5 at para. 12. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 5 at para. 12. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 15 at para. 17. 10 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, pp. 20 (lines 28-48) to 23 (lines 6-21). 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 84 at para. 46. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 7 at para. 19. 13 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 85-87 at paras. 50-62. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 6 at para. 15. 15 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, p. 11 (lines 16-37). 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 86 at para. 59. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 7 at para. 18. 18 Current National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia, March 31, 2020, item 3.11, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR), SOM105248.E, March 17, 2016, at pp. 1/12-7/12. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 9, pp. 249-250. 20 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, p. 11 (lines 16-37). 21 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, pp. 7 (lines 22-49) to 10 (lines 6-30), inclusive. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 6. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, Exhibit 8, p. 242. 24 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, pp. 3 (lines 31-49) to 4 (lines 33-39). 25 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, pp. 10 (lines 32-49) to 11 (line 5). 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 91 at paras. 85-88. 27 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 92 at paras. 92-93. 28 Exhibit RPD-2, Supplementary RPD Record, dated August 6, 2020, p. 2. 29 Exhibit RPD-2, Supplementary RPD Record, dated August 6, 2020, p. 2 at paras. 3-7. 30 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, pp. 13 (lines 36-50) to 17 (lines 5-10) inclusive. 31 Transcript of hearing in RPD file no. TB7-03272 on April 13 2018, pp. 17 (lines 23-50) to 19 (lines 6-42) inclusive. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 7 at para. 17. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 238. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, pp. 87-88 at paras. 65-72. 35 Aziz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 914 at para. 13 (Lagacé J.). 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 9 at para. 24. 37 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 89 at para. 74. 38 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 89 at para. 76. 39 NDP for Somalia, March 31, 2020. item 3.5, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR) ZZZ106153.E. August 13, 2018. 40 Exhibit RPD-2, Supplementary RPD Record dated August 6, 2020, p. 6. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 9 at para. 24. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons for Decision, p. 9 at para. 24. 43 NDP, Somalia, 31 March 2020, item 1.6. Somalia. 2020 Humanitarian Needs Overview. United Nations. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. December 2019. 44 NDP, Somalia, 31 March 2020, Item 13.1, No redress: Somalia's forgotten minorities. Minority Rights Group International. November 2010 at p. 21. 45 NDP, Somalia, 31 March 2020, item 1.7. Situation in South and Central Somalia (including Mogadishu). Asylum Research Consultancy. 25th January 2018 at p. 86. 46 NDP, Somalia, 31 March 2020, item 1.6. Somalia. 2020 Humanitarian Needs Overview. United Nations. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. December 2019. 47 NDP, Somalia, 31 March 2020: Item 1.4, Report of the Secretary-General on Somalia. S/2019/661, United Nations. Security Council. 15 August 2019 at pp. 3/18 to 4/18; and Item 1.6, Somalia. 2020 Humanitarian Needs Overview. United Nations. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. December 2019. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-25662 TB8-25663 / TB8-25664 / TB8-25665 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français