TC1-18109

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-18109 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne en cause Date of decision April 1, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Cynthia Pay Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Tina Hlimi (Law Office -Tina Hlimi) Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] This decision is about XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), who claims to be a citizen of Somalia. She claims that she faces persecution or risk to her life there from Al Shabaab, who she alleges killed her father in XXXX 2018, as well as from members of her former partner's family, who are linked to Al Shabaab and her father's death. She claims that she also began to receive threats and, with the help of her family, fled to Kenya later in 2018. She then travelled to Canada in 2020 with the help of an agent, who brought her to Canada with a false Danish passport, and made a refugee claim here. She is now appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), which rejected her claim on the basis that she had not established her claimed identity. The RPD found that the Somali passport and National ID card she provided were unreliable, as the objective country condition evidence provides that the Somali passport is not a reliable identity document; she had no birth certificate to support her application as the objective country condition evidence suggests is required; she provided little detail how she obtained these documents or how she had them sent to Canada; and because there were irregularities in the Kenyan visa in the passport. Further, she claimed that she travelled to Canada under a false Danish passport, but the Minister intervened in her claim by providing evidence that there was no record of anyone entering Canada under the name she provided to authorities. The RPD also found that her other identity evidence was insufficient to establish her claimed identity and nationality. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its finding on identity, as it failed to consider the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines in its analysis, which would explain why she did not have details of how her passport was obtained. She further argues that the Somali passport should be considered prima facie evidence of her identity and that there was no evidence that it was not genuine; and that most Somalis do not have birth certificates but can use guarantors to corroborate their identities. Based on my review of the evidence and arguments, I find that the RPD did not err, uphold its finding regarding identity, and find that the Appellant has not established her identity. I find that her Somali passport is not a reliable identity document; that the cumulative impact of the many gaps in her evidence regarding her identity documents and travel to Canada diminishes the credibility of her claimed identity; and that her other identity evidence is insufficient to establish her claimed identity on a balance of probabilities. DECISION [2] I dismiss the appeal and uphold the RPD's decision that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant claims that she faces a well-founded fear of persecution in Somalia. She claims that her father was killed by members of Al Shabaab in XXXX 2018, as he was perceived as supporting the government through his work repairing vehicles for them. She later learned that her partner's brother was involved in the killing; she began to receive threatening text messages in XXXX 2018;1 bullets were fired through the window of her family home in the same month, and she received threats from her now former partner and his family. She reports that she and her mother decided that she should flee Somalia. With the help of a family friend, she obtained a Somali passport and National ID card and travelled to Kenya in XXXX 2018.2 While there, she stayed with another family friend, who also helped her find an agent who helped her to travel to Canada. She alleges that the agent provided her with a Danish passport in the name of "XXXX XXXX XXXX" and that she travelled with him to Canada, posing as his 14-year-old daughter. She states that she arrived in Toronto on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, and she made a refugee claim here on February 26, 2020.3 [4] The Minister intervened in her claim regarding credibility and identity, providing evidence that, based on an Integrated Customs Enforcement System (ICES) search, no one by the name allegedly provided in the false Danish passport, "XXXX XXXX XXXX," or under the Appellant's name used in her claim, had entered Canada between XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020. It argued that this suggested that the Appellant was attempting to mislead Canadian authorities regarding her entry to Canada and her identity and that she did not provide sufficient credible evidence to establish her claimed identity. [5] The RPD heard the Appellant's claim on September 27, 2021. In its reasons dated October 22, 2021, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim, finding that she had not established her claimed identity. As outlined above, the RPD found that the Somali passport and National ID card she provided were unreliable, as the objective country condition evidence provides that the Somali passport is not a reliable identity document; she provided little detail regarding how she obtained these documents or how she had them sent to Canada; she had no identity documentation to support her application as the objective country condition evidence suggests is required; and because there were irregularities in the Kenyan visa in the passport. Further, she claimed that she travelled to Canada under a false Danish passport. The Minister intervened in her claim by providing evidence that there was no record of anyone entering Canada under the name she provided to authorities. The RPD also found that her other identity evidence was insufficient to establish her claimed identity and nationality. [6] The Appellant appeals this decision to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). She argues that the RPD erred in its finding on identity, as it failed to consider the Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Gender Guideline)4 in its analysis, which would explain why she did not have details of how her passport was obtained. Further, she argues that the Somali passport should be considered prima facie evidence of her identity and there was no evidence that it was not genuine; and that most Somalis do not have birth certificates but can use guarantors to corroborate their identities. She does not present new evidence or request an oral hearing of her appeal. [7] Based on my review, I find that the RPD did not err in its overall determination, and agree that the Appellant has not established her claimed identity and that she has not established that he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [8] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica,5 the RAD must review RPD decisions on a correctness standard with respect to questions of law and findings of fact (and mixed fact and law). Deference may be required when the RPD is in an advantageous position with respect to the assessment of oral evidence.6 In this case, I review the RPD decision on a correctness standard. I find that the RPD was not in an advantageous position regarding the assessment of the Appellant's evidence, as I was able to review and clearly understand the oral evidence. The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established her claimed identity [9] Based on my review, I find that the RPD did not err, and I agree with its finding that the Appellant has not established her claimed identity and citizenship as a Somali national. As outlined above, the Appellant claims that she entered Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, under a false Danish passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX, but there is no record of her entry, and she provides no documentation to corroborate her claimed travel to Canada such as boarding passes. She provides a Somali passport, and National ID card in support of her claimed identity, but I agree with the RPD that these documents should be given limited weight, as the objective country condition evidence indicates that Somali passports are not viewed as reliable identity documents by Canadian and other authorities; it appears that she provided no reliable identity documentation in support of her Somali passport application, and provided little detail regarding how these documents were originally obtained or sent to her in Canada. Further, I agree with the RPD that her other identity evidence is insufficiently reliable to establish her claimed identity. The Appellant's account of her travel to Canada is not established on a balance of probabilities [10] The RPD found that the Appellant's account of how she travelled to Canada was not credible and that this diminished her credibility, as it placed doubt on where she has been and where she originates from. As found by the RPD, the Appellant claimed that she entered Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, under a false Danish passport in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX, but based on the evidence provided by the Minister; there is no record of her entry under this name or the name used in her claim between the dates of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020. Further, she provided no documentation of her travel to Canada, such as boarding passes. In response to the evidence provided by the Minister, the Appellant claimed that she might have been mistaken in the exact name or spelling of the name on the passport, as the agent handled all of the arrangements for her travel because she was posing as his 14-year-old daughter, and that she never saw the name in the passport or knew the name of the agent. The RPD found that it was not credible that she did not know the name and other details such as the date of birth on the passport, especially as she claimed that she had travelled through multiple countries in her journey to Canada, including stops in Egypt and Turkey, and made a negative credibility inference as a result. [11] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in this finding, as she explained that she never saw the name on the passport and the spelling of the name may not have been accurate; and the RPD cannot make a negative inference on the basis of her use of a false passport, as many refugees must do so in order to flee persecution. [12] Based on my review, I find that the RPD did not err in this finding, and I agree that the Appellant's account of her journey to Canada lacks credibility and undermines the credibility of her claimed identity. Although the Appellant explained that she did not see the name on the alleged false Danish passport in response to the Minister's evidence that the name she claimed to enter Canada was not recorded in the database of entries to the country,7 I find that her evidence about this issue is evolving and lacks credibility. Further, the RPD did not make a negative inference on the basis of her use of a false passport as argued. [13] In her Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative dated February 26, 2020, the Appellant states that she used a Danish passport in the name of "XXXX XXXX XXXX."8 She does not state in the narrative that she is unsure of the name or its spelling or that she had never seen the name or the inside of the passport. She states in her narrative that: The agent provided me with a Danish passport with the name XXXX XXXX XXXX. I left Nairobi, Kenya on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020 and I arrived in Toronto, Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020. The smuggler took the passport and left me at the airport.9 I find that her account suggests that she held the passport during the journey, as it states that the agent "provided" it to her and that he "took the passport" after they arrived in Canada. In the Record of Examination by Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) on March 13, 2020,10 the Appellant again stated in response to a question regarding whether she ever had possession of the passport that "I held the passport."11 She provides the same name allegedly used in the passport to officials, "XXXX XXXX XXXX," but does not indicate in her interview that she did not see the name in the passport or that she was unsure of the spelling of the name. It is only after the Minister intervened in her claim, providing evidence that there was no record of anyone by this name entering Canada, that the Appellant began to say that she had not seen the name in the passport or that she may have misspelled the name. I find that her evidence on this point is evolving, and that the omission of this allegation reduces the credibility of her explanation for the lack of a match to the name that she allegedly used to enter Canada. [14] I further find that her account that she did not look inside or see the name in the passport was implausible and that this further reduces the credibility of her account of her travel to Canada. According to her account, the Appellant travelled to Canada from Kenya via two other countries, Egypt and Turkey, and she travelled on two different airlines from Egypt and Turkey,12 and further, as found above, she initially stated in her BOC narrative and interview that she was holding her alleged Danish passport until the agent took it from her after they arrived in Canada. In response to the Minister's evidence, however, she additionally testified that she "did not see inside" the passport.13 I find it to be implausible that she did not have to open the passport to show the biometric page to officials at multiple immigration or airplane boarding counters as she travelled from country to country and that if she did, that she would not have seen inside the passport. She suggested in response to questions by the RPD that the agent, who was posing as her father, dealt with everything and cleared immigration on her behalf,14 but this is inconsistent with her other evidence outlined above that she was holding the passport during her journey to Canada. I also find it implausible that the Appellant, who was, according to her information, 29 years old when she travelled to Canada, would have been accepted by multiple officials without question as the agent's 14-year-old daughter. I note that plausibility findings should only be made in the clearest of cases, such as when the facts as presented are outside the realm of what could be reasonably expected.15 I find, however, that this is the case here. I find it outside the realm of what can be reasonably expected that the Appellant, a 29-year-old, could travel without problem as a 14-year-old; and further, that she could enter three different countries and board multiple flights without seeing inside the passport that she was allegedly holding. [15] I further note that a number of the questions asked by the Appellant's legal representative on this point were somewhat leading and give these answers less weight as a result. I find that the Appellant's legal representative suggested the answers in some of their questions as follows: COUNSEL: Okay, so that passport with the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX (ph), did you see (inaudible, 02:46:23, #0912) of the passport? CLAIMANT: I was not shown. I've not seen exactly the passport, what's written inside or the picture, but I was just told the name. COUNSEL: So you were verbally told the name, but you never looked inside? CLAIMANT: That's right. COUNSEL: So, you provided the name, sorry, you provided the name XXXX XXXX XXXX (ph) but are you certain of how that name is spelled? CLAIMANT: No, I was just told that the name verbally that was the name written and I was told that he would be... that I would be travelling as his daughter but nothing else. COUNSEL: Okay. So, it's literally difficult because I am sure you don't even know how it was spelled. So, is it possible to spell that name in an English way and is it possible to spell that name in a Somali way, like would it look different? CLAIMANT: Yes. COUNSEL: So, it would look different, the spelling? CLAIMANT: Yes, the way I understood is that spelling in English... full name in English and in Somali way, right? COUNSEL: Yes, so would there be a difference in spelling between English and Somali? CLAIMANT: Yes.16 I find that some of the questions posed to the Appellant suggested some of the answers, such as "So you were verbally told the name, but you never looked inside?" "So, it's literally difficult because I am sure you don't even know how it was spelled;" and "So, it would look different, the spelling?" I find that these questions were leading and give the Appellant's responses less weight as a result. [16] In summary, I find that the Appellant's account of her travel lacked credibility. As noted by Minister, she provided a name that she allegedly used to enter Canada, but there is no record of anyone entering the country under this name. The Appellant initially claimed that she was holding the alleged Danish passport but did not mention that she did not look inside the passport until confronted by the Minister's evidence, which I find to be both evolving and implausible. Her legal representative's leading questions on these points further reduced the weight given to her answers. I find that these concerns further reduce the credibility of her claimed identity and credibility overall. [17] I further find that the RPD did not err as argued by the Appellant in basing a negative inference on her claimed use of a false passport to flee to Canada. The RPD did not make a negative inference on this basis, but rather on the basis that her account of her travel to Canada was not credible, as discussed above. The Appellant's other documentation in support of her identity is insufficient to establish her claimed identity [18] The Appellant provided a copy of a Somali passport and National ID card in support of her claimed identity. The RPD found that a number of credibility concerns reduced the credibility and reliability of these documents, including the fact that the objective country condition evidence indicates that Somali passports are not recognized by many countries as reliable identity documents; the Appellant did not provide a birth certificate to apply for her passport, as the objective country condition evidence states is required; her testimony regarding how she obtained the passport was vague and lacking in detail; she was unable to provide the name of the person who sent the documents to her from Kenya or other details of its provenance, and the Kenyan visa stamp provided in the passport appeared to lack required information. [19] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of these documents, as there is no evidence that the passport is not genuine, and passports must be considered prima facie evidence of identity. She submits that although she did not provide a birth certificate in her passport application, most Somalis would not be able to do so either, and she could have used an elder as a guarantor of her identity. Further, she argues that the RPD erred in failing to consider the Chairperson's Gender Guideline in its analysis, as it did not consider the Appellant's cultural context and gender because, as a Somali woman, she might not have access to information about the family friend who helped her to obtain her passport and the details about its issuance or the person who helped send the passport to her from Kenya, who was a distant relative and fellow clan member. The missing details from the Kenyan visa stamp were explained by the fact that it was issued at a busy airport. [20] Based on my review, I find that the RPD did not err in its assessment of the Appellant's Somali passport and National ID card and agree that these documents are not reliable evidence of her claimed identity. [21] The Appellant argues that her Somali passport should be considered prima facie evidence of her nationality and that there is no indication that it is not genuine, but I agree with the RPD that it is not a reliable identity document. Based on the country condition evidence, I agree with the RPD's finding that Somali passports are not generally viewed as reliable identity documents. As cited by the RPD, evidence from the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia states that: The US Country Reports 2014 indicates that "[i]n view of widespread passport fraud, many foreign governments did not recognize Somali passports as valid travel documents" (US 25 June 2015, 22). According to the US Reciprocity Schedule for Somalia, "Somali passports are not valid for visa-issuance purposes" (ibid. n.d.). With regard to the eligibility of Somalis to enter Canada as tourists, Citizenship and Immigration Canada notes on their website that "passports supposedly issued by Somalia" are "not considered reliable" and therefore cannot be utilized for entry into Canada (Canada n.d.). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at Global Affairs Canada similarly reported that the Government of Canada "does not recognize [Somali passports] as there are no credible or verifiable registrars for issuance of primary or seed documents (birth or citizenship records)" (ibid. 5 Aug. 2015). The lawyer indicated that is still uncertain whether or not the Somali passport will be accepted internationally "due to questions of security, transparency, monitoring, and evaluation of the documents' issuance" (24 July 2015).17 The Appellant did not specifically challenge this finding. I see no basis to find that the RPD erred, and agree that the objective country condition evidence indicates that Somali passports are not generally recognized as reliable identity documents. [22] I also agree with the RPD that further credibility issues regarding the alleged Somali passport arise from the fact that, according to her evidence, the Appellant did not use a birth certificate to apply for the passport as required. I find that the objective country condition evidence indicates that a birth certificate is required to apply for a Somali passport.18 The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in this finding, as most Somalis do not have a birth certificate, and an elder or guarantor can also vouch for an applicant's identity. I disagree with this argument, as the objective country condition evidence cited by the Appellant does not confirm that such vouching processes can take place for passport applications but rather discusses historical practices where this might have taken place and the possible role of elders in the establishment of future identification verification systems in Somalia.19 [23] The Appellant also cites Item 3.22 of the NDP, where she argues that in order to obtain a Somali passport in Brussels, applicants can be issued a "Declaration of Nationality" by the embassy in lieu of a birth certificate. She argues that this process requires a reference, such as an elder clan representative, and she argues that her father's friend served as such a reference. Based on my review, I find that this evidence is inapplicable to the Appellant's situation, as she did not apply for her passport at the Somali Embassy in Brussels but claims that she did so in Somalia; she did not claim to have obtained a "Declaration of Nationality" in lieu of a birth certificate from an embassy or to have undergone an interview, which is described in the objective country condition evidence as required to obtain such a Declaration.20 Her father's friend's affidavit does not describe any such process or state that he served as a reference to vouch for her identity. His statement merely reports that he "contacted a friend who helped XXXX secure a Somali passport."21 [24] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its finding that the reliability of her passport is also reduced because she was unable to provide details regarding how she obtained it or how it was sent to her from Kenya after she arrived in Canada. She argues that the RPD failed to consider the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines in its analysis or to consider her gender and the fact that as a woman in Somali culture, she may not have had access to information about her father's friend, whom she claims assisted her in obtaining her passport, or the full details in how it was obtained. Further, she explained that the person who sent it to her was only a distant relative or clan member and that she had forgotten his name because it had been a year since the time she had requested it. [25] Based on my review, I agree with the Appellant that the RPD did not mention the Chairperson's Guidelines 4 in its reasons, but further determine that its finding that she provided only vague testimony regarding the assistance provided by her father's friend in obtaining the passport was a fairly minor one, and not central to the RPD's overall determination regarding the reliability of the passport based on the objective country condition evidence, as discussed above. I accept that the Appellant may not have had detailed knowledge about the family friend and do not rely on this finding; however, I still find that the passport is unreliable evidence of her identity. The information that was provided about the application process for the passport, namely that she did not provide a birth certificate as required, was sufficient to further throw the reliability of this identity document and its accompanying National ID card into question, regardless of whether or not she could provide details about the person who allegedly helped her to obtain it. [26] The RPD also found that the Appellant did not provide details regarding who sent the passport and National ID card to her in Canada from Kenya, and that this further diminished the credibility of these documents. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in this finding, as she had explained that she had forgotten the name of the person as more than a year had passed since she had requested it, and the person was a distant relative or fellow clan member, and it was credible that she would ask a distant clan member to assist her, as fellow clan members are treated like family in Somalia. I disagree with this argument and agree with the RPD that the fact that the Appellant could not provide details regarding how she obtained the documents from Kenya to further call the reliability of these documents into question. I further note that the Appellant mentioned that the documents were sent by DHL but provided no corroboration of this claim, such as a copy of the courier envelope, which would also help to establish the provenance of the documents. [27] The RPD also noted that the Kenyan visa in the Appellant's passport was missing a number of details, such as her full name, passport number, expiry date and issuing signature, and that this lack of information was unexplained and further reduced the credibility of the passport. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in this finding, as she explained that it was incomplete because it was issued at Nairobi, which is a very busy airport, and that her subsequently renewed visa was complete. She argues that this does not demonstrate that the passport is not genuine. Based on my review, I agree with the RPD that a number of details were missing in the Kenyan visa but accept that this could have occurred through an oversight of the staff issuing the visa. I find, however, that this is not a central finding of the RPD and that even if the RPD erred in this finding, it is not fatal to its overall finding regarding the reliability of the Appellant's Somali passport and National ID card. [28] The Appellant also provided other evidence in support of her claimed identity, including a letter from the XXXX XXXX and an identity witness who testified at her hearing. The RPD found that this evidence was insufficient to overcome its credibility concerns and to credibly establish the Appellant's claimed identity. The Appellant does not challenge these findings, and I see no basis to find that the RPD erred in its assessment. As noted by the RPD, the letter from the XXXX XXXX supports the Appellant's claimed Somali nationality on the basis of an interview focused on general knowledge about Somalia, such as language and heritage. I agree with the RPD that this knowledge is limited in its ability to establish the Appellant's citizenship; and further note that the letter is largely a generic description of the organization with little detail about the Appellant's interview.22 I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's identity witness only claimed to have met her once in Somalia in 2016 and that they knew very little about each other, such as details of their families; and that the credibility of his testimony was seriously diminished by the inconsistency in their accounts of how they met in Canada, as she stated that she had asked an unknown woman at a Somali restaurant for his contact information, and that she happened to know him and provided his phone number;23 but he testified that he met her when she was brought to visit his home by another girl, and that he did not know anyone who worked at that restaurant.24 I also give the statement by the Appellant's father's friend limited weight, as it provides little detail such as when he met the Appellant and how he assisted her to obtain her Somali passport.25 [29] In summary, although I acknowledge that official identification documents are difficult to obtain in Somalia, I find that there are significant credibility issues arising from the evidence relating to the Appellant's claimed travel to Canada, which damages the credibility of the Appellant's claimed identity and credibility in general. I further find that the identity documentation she provided was not reliable and that her other evidence considered cumulatively is still insufficient to establish her identity. CONCLUSION [30] On the basis of the findings outlined above, I dismiss the appeal. I find that the Appellant has not established her claimed identity and is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. (signed) Cynthia Pay Cynthia Pay April 1, 2022 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 18, para 27. 2 Ibid., at p. 18, para 29. 3 Ibid., at p. 18, para 30. 4 Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, Effective date: November 13, 1996. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII). [Huruglica] 6 Huruglica, ibid., at para 70; X(Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at p. 71. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 18, para 30. 9 Ibid. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at pp. 72-73. 11 Ibid., at p. 72. 12 Transcript of September 27, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 21, lines 1-18. 13 Transcript of September 27, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 40, lines 24-26. 14 Transcript of September 27, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 21, lines 35-37. 15 Valtchev, Rousko v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4497-99), Muldoon, July 6, 2001, at para 7. 16 Transcript of September 27, 2021 RPD Hearing, at pp. 37-38. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Somalia (April 16 2021), item 3.11: Identification documents, including national identity cards, passports, driver's licenses, and any other document required to access government services; information on the issuing agencies and the requirements to obtain documents (2013-July 2015), Immigration and Refugee Board, Response to Information Request SOM105248.E, March 17, 2016, at p. 4. 18 Ibid., item 3.11, at p. 2. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (April 16 2021), item 3.18: ?Toward a Somali Identification System: ID4D Diagnostic, World Bank Group, 2016, at p. 55. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (April 16, 2021), item 3.22: Query response. Somalia: Passport application at the Somali Embassy in Brussels., Norway. Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo., May 21, 2019, at pp. 2-3. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 81. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at p. 93. 23 Transcript of September 27, 2021 RPD Hearing, at p. 25. 24 Transcript of September 27, 2021 RPD Hearing, at pp. 30-32. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 80-81. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-18109 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français