TB4-01379

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 : TB4-01379 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 XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision September 08, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Robert Bebbington Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Raoul Boulakia 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 (Appellant) alleges he is a citizen of Somalia. He appealed a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection to the Federal Court of Canada. On May 27, 2015, the Federal Court set aside the RAD decision and his appeal was remitted back to the RAD for re-consideration with a different decision-maker. [2] The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (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 with a differently constituted panel. The Appellant has submitted new evidence with the appeal as referred to in s.110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1 and requests an oral hearing be held pursuant to s.110(6) of the IRPA. DETERMINATION [3] 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 [4] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he cannot return to Somalia because he fears persecution at the hands of Habir Gedir clan members based on a clan dispute that occurred in 1996. The Appellant also alleges that he fears Al-Shabaab who killed his brother. [5] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on October 9, 2013. In a decision on January 21, 2014, the RPD rejected the claim, finding the Appellant had not established his identity. The Appellant applied to the RAD for a review of the RPD decision. The RAD decision on May 28, 2014, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the RPD. The Appellant appealed to the Federal Court to have the RAD decision reviewed. On May 27, 2015, the Federal Court set aside the RAD decision and his appeal was remitted back to the RAD for re-consideration with a different decision-maker. Federal Court Decision [6] The Federal Court found that: * The RAD was correct in its rejection of the affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX. * The RAD was wrong in its assessment of documentary evidence in respect of the Appellant's clan affiliation and its assessment of inconsistencies in the Appellant's name between records from the U.S. and Canada. [7] The Appellant submits the following issues: a) That he be granted additional time to prepare legal submissions. b) The RPD did not have the benefit of a credible supporting witness and the Appellant now has two reliable witnesses. c) The statutory restrictions limiting the time to prepare for a RPD hearing and limiting the admissibility of new evidence on appeal have a discriminatory impact on Somali refugees. The RPD should compensate for this by relying on its own records to assist in locating another Dhabarweyne who might be able to identify the Appellant. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [8] As provided for in ss.110(3) of IRPA, with certain exceptions, the RAD must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and refugee claimant. Subsection 110(4) of IRPA provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to present, at the time of the rejection. [9] The Appellant has tendered seven documents as proposed new evidence in support of his appeal. * Affidavit from the Appellant dated June 25, 2015. * Affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX dated June 17, 2015. - Personal Information Form (PIF) of XXXX XXXX XXXX. - Permanent Resident Card of XXXX XXXX XXXX. * Affidavit of XXXX XXXXdated June 24, 2015. * Selected Public Records from litigation in Ahmed v. M.C.I. - Intervention memorandum * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXNews Article: CBC November 4, 2014 * Globe and Mail Article, November 25, 2011 * Globe and Mail Article, December 23, 2010 [10] In determining how the statutory provisions of Subsection 110(4) apply to this proposed new evidence, the RAD considered the following: [11] First, did the evidence arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim? * The RAD may consider whether the evidence is capable of proving the current state of affairs in the country of feared persecution, or an event that occurred or a circumstance that arose after the rejection of the refugee claim * The RAD will consider not only the date on which the document came into existence but the timing of the event or circumstance which the document seeks to prove. It is important to note here that Subsection 110(4) does not contemplate whether the evidence arose after the RPD's hearing but rather after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. * Where a document arose after the hearing but before the rejection of the refugee claim, it is necessary for the RAD to consider whether the Appellant could have presented the document to the RPD by way of a post-hearing submission. [12] Second, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, it must consider the next factor in Subsection 110(4). * If the evidence is capable of proving only an event that occurred or circumstances that arose prior to the rejection, has the Appellant established that the evidence was not reasonably available for presentation to the RPD before it rejected the claim, or that it proves a fact that was unknown to him at the time of the hearing? [13] Third, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim and that it was reasonably available at the time of the rejection, it must consider the final part of the Subsection 110(4) test: * Could the Appellant reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence prior to the rejection of his refugee claim? If so, the evidence need not be considered. If the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to present the evidence to the RPD, the RAD will proceed to assess the credibility, relevance and materiality of the document. [14] In the case at hand, the RAD will assess the new evidence and determine its admissibility. New Evidence The Appellant's affidavit [15] In respect to the Appellant's affidavit,2 he submits this document explains his efforts to find witnesses to confirm his identity as well as authorization for the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to verify his identity based on its own records. The RAD finds the document is admissible as new evidence in this appeal. [16] The RAD has reviewed the Appellant's affidavit and notes that he provides an explanation about why he was unable to provide an affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX at his RPD hearing. The RAD notes this explanation is similar in content to that provided in his initial RAD appeal. The RAD further notes the Federal Court has supported the RAD finding in respect of the affidavit from XXXX XXXX XXXX made at the Appellant's initial RAD appeal. The RAD finds the Appellant has not provided any additional persuasive argument to explain why the witness was not available to provide testimony in an effort support his identity. The RAD further finds the affidavit provides no additional information to support the Appellant's identity as a national of Somalia. The RAD agrees with the finding of the Federal Court and finds this aspect of the Appellant's affidavit does not provide any credible evidence to support the Appellant's identity as a national of Somalia. [17] The Appellant further states that he was able to gather information from the counsel who represented him at his first RAD appeal about the existence of Somali community groups. The Appellant states he was able to contact one of these groups and met with their director (Mr. XXXX) on XXXX XXXX, 2014, but the director of the group was unable to provide the Appellant with any further ideas as to how to find individuals who might assist in confirming the Appellant's identity. The RAD notes the Appellant provided an affidavit with his first RAD appeal, but the document does not address his awareness of additional Somali community organizations or any activities associated with intent to contact them. [18] The Appellant retained a new counsel to assist with his Federal Court appeal and his second RAD appeal. His new counsel has attempted to contact Mr. XXXX without success. The Appellant further explained that his counsel told him about another Somali community group which is no longer active and put him in touch with an individual named XXXX XXXX, who was previously associated with this community group. [19] Mr. XXXX has provided an affidavit in support of the Appellant's identity in this appeal. This affidavit is addressed later in this decision. [20] The Appellant further submits his lawyer has suggested he request that the IRB examine their records and identify other individuals who may be members of the Dhabarwenyne Somali sub-clan. The Appellant further suggests that the IRB contact these individuals and inquire whether they are willing to testify in his appeal. Alternatively the Appellant requests that the IRB supply this information to his counsel. [21] The RAD notes at the very least this request should be submitted to the IRB as an application, and it does not constitute new evidence in this Appeal. The RAD will further assess this request later in these Reasons. [22] The RAD acknowledges the difficulty faced by the Appellant in establishing his identity. The RAD places little evidentiary weight on the information contained in this affidavit as support for the appellant's identity as a national of Somalia. Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX [23] The RAD finds this document and the associated PIF document and permanent resident card3 are submitted for the purpose of establishing the identity of the Appellant. The RAD notes the Appellant met this individual on June 13, 2015. The RAD finds this document is admissible as evidence in this claim. [24] The affiant submits he was a member of the Reer Hamar clan and the Dhabarweyne sub-clan in Somalia and a friend of the Appellant's uncle. He states he departed Somalia in 2006. The affiant states he was a business partner of the Appellant's uncle for an unspecified number of years. He further states, "I knew XXXX father through his brother and I have met him on several occasions". The RAD finds this statement makes little sense, it does not identify who "XXXX" is and his relationship to the Appellant. The affiant carries on to state, "I never met any of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant's father) offspring, but I knew of their existence". The RAD finds this statement confirms the affiant was aware that the Appellant's father had children, but it does not identify who they are. The RAD finds that the fact that the affiant was aware that the Appellant's father had children does not mean the Appellant is one of those children. [25] The affiant states he can confirm that the Appellant is a member of the Reer Hamar clan and the Dhabarweyne sub-clan. The RAD in reviewing this document finds the Affiant's statements are based on his connection to the Appellant's uncle, but he has no direct or persuasive knowledge of the Appellant's existence or his identity in Somalia. The RAD finds this affidavit may provide information to support the Appellant's clan identity, but it cannot place any evidentiary weight on its ability to establish the Appellant's residency in Somalia or his identity as a Somali national. Affidavit of XXXX XXXX [26] The Appellant has submitted an affidavit4 from XXXX XXXX dated June 24, 2015. The affiant states the Appellant was referred to him by his current counsel in this appeal. The RAD finds this document is admissible as new evidence in this appeal as it provides potential identity support for the Appellant. [27] The affiant states he is a former employee of a Somali community agency, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Agency. He states this agency was funded by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. He further describes he worked as a "XXXX XXXX" from 1993 until 2012. [28] The affiant describes his impression of the work the agency performed in great detail. The affiant does not provide any background information or documentation to support what qualifications he has to make the statements in his affidavit. He states he has interviewed the Appellant as well as the affiant XXXX XXXX XXXX and Mr. XXXX cousin XXXX XXXX. The affiant states he believes based on these discussions as well as the Appellant's knowledge of his clan, his family relations and of the area he lived in that the Appellant is a Reer Hamar from the Dhabarweyne sub-clan. The RAD notes as detailed as this affidavit appears to be (two and one half pages), the affiant devotes only a few lines to statements about the Appellant. He provides no background information as to the details of the Appellant's knowledge of his clan, his family relations or the area in which he lived, which lead to his statement supporting the Appellant's affiliation with the Reer Hamar and the Dhabarweyne sub-clan. [29] The RAD finds the affiant's statement is based on information provided secondhand by others and on self-reporting by the Appellant. The RAD notes its review of the audio recording of the hearing found the Appellant's testimony in respect to his knowledge of his clan to be very vague and non-specific. The RAD prefers the sworn testimony of the Appellant at his hearing for refugee protection. The RAD places little evidentiary weight on the affidavit of XXXX XXXX in establishing the Appellant's identity as a Somali national. Alternatively if the RAD were to accept the affiant's statements in respect to the Appellant, the RAD finds it simply confirms the Appellant's identity as a member of the Reer Hamar and the sub-clan Dhabarweyne, but not a resident or national of Somalia. Selected public records from litigation in Ahmed v. M.C.I. [30] The RAD notes this information is associated with a Federal Court file dated 1995 and 1996. There is attached documentation that includes copies of various press releases and excerpts from books dating back to the mid 1990's. The Appellant submits as much as this information is old the material could not reasonably be expected to be accessible to the Appellant. The Appellant further submits that the record associated with this Federal Court Case was settled through mediation and hence a lawyer who was not involved in the case would have difficulty locating the information. The RAD finds that the case law addressed in thisFederal Court file is admissible [31] The RAD has reviewed this submission and finds it provides background information as to the utilization of secondary identity information in order to establish identity. The RAD finds that his type of investigation and assessment has been utilized by the IRB for some time now and this is not new evidence. The RAD further notes that these techniques have been utilized by the RPD and the RAD in the adjudication of this appeal. Further to this the RAD has previously stated it does not dispute that it is difficult for refugee claimants from countries like Somalia to establish their identity. [32] The RAD finds that the supporting documentation in this particular case would be available to the Appellant prior to the rejection of his claim and it does not constitute new evidence. The RAD assigns little weight to this document. It speaks to methodology utilized for establishing identity which has been discussed above, The RAD finds the document is not relevant in establishing the Appellant's identity. CBC news article [33] The RAD finds this article is admissible as new evidence in respect of its production date of November 4, 2014. The RAD has reviewed the article and finds it refers to the deportation of an individual to Somalia who had established his identity and was a permanent resident of Canada for a number of years. Due to criminal activity the individual had his permanent resident status revoked. [34] The RAD finds the article does not have application in the case at hand because the Appellant is not at risk of deportation to Somalia at this time because he has not established that he is a national of Somalia. The RAD places little weight on the article submitted as support for the Appellant's identity as a national of Somalia. The Globe and Mail articles [35] The Appellant has submitted copies of two articles5 from the Globe and Mail newspaper dated November 25, 2011 and August 23, 2010. The RAD notes that both of these articles predate the January 21, 2014, decision date from the RPD. The RAD has further considered whether these articles are material to this claim. [36] The Appellant and a number of his affiants have submitted that there are a number of factors that hamper Somalis in the establishing their identity. One of the common threads in this argument seems to place blame for this problem on funding cuts by the Federal government. A second common statement appears to be that timelines for preparation and submission of documents for refugee claimants are much shorter now and this makes the provision of alternate identity support difficult. [37] The two articles submitted address these concerns and for this particular reason the RAD admits these articles as new evidence in this appeal. The RAD has considered these statements of the Appellant's and his affiants'. The RAD finds the comments about Federal government spending change are speculative and not evidence based. [38] The RAD further notes that its review of the two articles submitted as proposed new evidence indicate that changes in spending allotment in all areas are often based on evolution and settlement of individuals within that system. The articles point out that "Ontario is losing its appeal for immigrants" and newcomers to Canada are seeking opportunities in other regions of Canada. In the past most newcomers to Canada settled in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, but that trend has changed, leading to a redistribution of Federal funds. The RAD further finds there is no persuasive evidence that changes in government funding is directed specifically toward Somali refugee claimants. [39] The RAD places little evidentiary weight on the two articles as support for the Appellant's identity or problems he has encountered establishing his identity in this appeal. ROLE OF THE RAD [40] The RAD finds that the recent Federal Court decision, in Huruglica,6 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. [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". [41] 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. The RAD will recognize and respect the credibility findings of the RPD. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Motion for Extension of Time [42] The Appellant submits in his memorandum that the RAD provided written notice dated June 5, 2015, that the Federal Court had granted the appeal and sent the RAD decision back for redetermination. The Appellant was notified that they had no more than 20 days to file these submissions. The Appellant's counsel argues that as the direction was not faxed the Appellant has less than the 20 days to prepare the submissions. The Appellant has placed a request in his memorandum that he be given an additional seven additional days to provide further legal submissions. [43] The RAD has considered the submissions of the Appellant. The RAD notes there is a formal application process for counsel to apply for an "Extension of Time to File or Perfect an Appeal". The RAD notes there is no application for an extension of time to file or perfect the appeal, on file. The RAD finds the Appellant submitted his Appellant Record on time, though the wording of his submission is stating that he has not fully "perfected" his appeal.. [44] The RAD further notes that the RAD Rules7, at Rule 29(2) allow the Appellant the opportunity to provide an - "Application to Submit Documents Not Previously Provided", and submit a document or submission that was not previously provided with the Appellant Record. The RAD finds the Appellant has additional opportunities to submit further documents and submissions to the RAD in this appeal. The Statutory Restrictions and Timelines [45] The Appellant submits that the combined impact of statutory restrictions limiting the time for an RPD hearing and limiting the admissibility of new evidence on appeal have a discriminatory effect on Somali refugees. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [46] The RAD has further considered the issue of reduced timelines and finds that this does not seem to be an applicable situation in this appeal as the Appellant made his initial claim for refugee protection in July 2013, over two years ago. The Appellant has made an initial appeal to the RAD in February 2014, an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court in February 2015 and an appeal to the Federal Court leading to a second RAD appeal. The RAD finds the Appellant has had ample time to seek additional support in the form of witnesses and documentation in his quest for refugee protection. The RAD finds the Appellant's argument must fail. The Appellant's Submission for Identity Assistance from the IRB [47] The Appellant further submits the government of Canada has contributed to the Appellant's identity problems by failing to ensure there is an agency or service to link Somali newcomers with accepted Somali refugees. The RAD is not persuaded by this argument. [48] The RAD has previously reviewed the Appellant's documentary evidence from the Globe and Mail newspaper8. The Appellant and a number of his affiants have submitted that there are a number of factors that hamper Somalis in the establishing their identity and they have stated they feel the Federal government is discriminating against them. The RAD found in its assessment of the documents that the actions of the Federal government were not directly designed to target any specific group, but simply represent a refocusing of resources in association with an evolving immigration landscape. The RAD finds this argument is speculative and not supported by the documentation submitted as new evidence. [49] The RAD has further reviewed the Appellant's affidavit where he submits that his lawyer has suggested he request that the IRB examine their records and identify other individuals who may be members of the Dhabarwenyne Somali sub-clan. The Appellant further suggests that the IRB contact these individuals and inquire whether they are willing to testify in his appeal. Alternatively the Appellant requests that the Board supply this information to his counsel. [50] The RAD notes it is the Appellant's duty to support their claim. The RAD notes that s.11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228 (the Rules) states: 11. The claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they were not provided and what steps were taken to obtain them. [51] The RAD notes at the very least this request should be submitted to the Board as an application, and it does not constitute new evidence in this Appeal. The RAD further notes that information of this nature would be administered under the Access to Information and Privacy Act and that his counsel could assist in an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request. [52] The RAD notes it is the Board's mission is to fairly adjudicate the Appellant's claim and appeal, but it is not equipped or mandated to provide investigative services to establish a basis for a claim. The RAD has considered the facts and the governance surrounding this request. The RAD does not support the request of the Appellant to request the Board to provide this information. [53] The RAD acknowledges the difficulty faced by the Appellant in establishing his identity. The RAD finds it is the Appellant's obligation to provide this information in support of his claim and the Appellant's argument must fail. The Appellant's identity testimony [54] The Appellant submits that the RPD accepted that the Appellant had a basic knowledge of his clan and sub-clan. The Appellant further states it is challenging to assess the evidence of an unsophisticated witness. The RAD notes the Appellant does not put forward an argument that the RPD erred in its assessment. [55] In order to fully assess the Appellant's allegations that he is a Somali national the RAD finds it necessary to fully review the record. The RAD has reviewed the audio recording of the RPD hearing as well as the record. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony was at times vague and evolving. For example, the Appellant testified that when he was detained in Mexico, he told authorities there he wanted to make a claim for refugee protection. He confirmed in his testimony that he made a claim in Mexico and when asked for further information, he changed his testimony The Appellant subsequently testified that he was planning to make a refugee claim in the United States. When the RPD asked him how he was going to prove he was Somali, he replied noting he was Somali and he speaks the language. [56] The Appellant was later questioned about his mother's heritage and background. He identified her clan background, but when asked for more details about where members of her tribe or clan live the Appellant was vague stating, "they live as part of the larger population and don't live anywhere in particular". He was subsequently asked about the types of work members of his mother's clan might do. The RAD found his response to be non-specific, stating, "they don't do any particular profession. Where they find jobs they do it". The RAD finds the Appellant was unable to provide anything but generalized statements. The RAD in reviewing the Appellant's testimony about his father's and by birth his own familial heritage the Appellant was equally vague. He alleged he was of Reer Hamar heritage and he was able to explain that his clan resided in Mogadishu and work often as XXXX and XXXX. When he asked for more detailed information about his clan he was unable to identify that his clan speaks a specific dialect. He testified that the majority speak Somali, which the RAD notes is not consistent with the documentary evidence.9 The RAD finds that the Appellant was unable to identify the fact that the Reer Hamar speak a specific dialect, (one of the main features that makes them unique) detracts from his identity. [57] When further questioned the Appellant was unable to identify any other sub-clans of the Reer Hamar. The RPD in an attempt to assist the Appellant and prompt further testimony, identified there were four major sub-clans. The Appellant was unable to provide any additional input in this area. [58] The RAD notes the RPD prompted the Appellant with additional information in respect of his clan, but he provided no further salient response. [59] The RAD notes in reviewing the Appellant's testimony and his BoC document that he is alleging fear of other clans in Somalia. The RAD's review of the country documentary evidence confirms that clan loyalty and affiliation is strong in Somalia. The Appellant was asked to explain why he lacked any knowledge beyond a few basic facts about his alleged clan affiliation. He testified that he was only a young man in Somalia and that he left in 2009 (age 22) and he did not have any knowledge of these things. [60] The RAD has considered the Appellant's age when he alleges he was in Somalia as well as his statements that he has a limited education. The RAD notes the Appellant was an adult in Somalia. He has demonstrated an ability to travel and live in multiple countries throughout the world. His BoC narrative relates that he has a working knowledge of the conflict in Somalia. After a review of the record, the RAD does not accept the explanation provided by the Appellant. The RAD finds it reasonable to believe the Appellant would have some knowledge of his family heritage as well as the background of other clans in the immediate area. The RAD finds the Appellant's lack of knowledge in respect of his clan background detracts from his credibility and his allegations that he is a citizen of Somalia. The identity affidavits [61] The Appellant submits his additional identity witnesses are reliable noting that Mr. XXXX has extensive experience dealing with issues of identity and that Mr. XXXX is known to the Board to be a member of the Dhabarwyene clan. The Appellant submits the affidavits from these two individuals serve to confirm his identity. The RAD is not persuaded by this argument. [62] The RAD has reviewed the two affidavits previously in these reasons. The RAD placed little weight on the two affidavits as support for the Appellant's identity as a national of Somalia. The RAD finds that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient persuasive evidence to identify himself as a national of Somalia Identity Conclusion [63] The RAD has reviewed the submissions of the Appellant as well as all of the evidence in this claim. The RAD has found: * The Appellant failed to provide credible personal testimony to ascertain his identity as a national of Somalia. * The Appellant may have resided in Somalia at some time during his life. One of the affiants stated he had knowledge of the Appellant's father in Mogadishu, but did not identify a date. The RAD notes the Appellant's BoC document state that his father disappeared in 1992. The Appellant provided no persuasive supporting evidence as to when he was last present in Somalia. * The Appellant was unable to provide persuasive evidence that he is a national of Somalia or any other country. * The RAD finds the Appellant has provided evidence and information to corroborate he speaks the Somali language and that he has association with the Reer Hamar and Dhabarwyene clan. The RAD notes that these characteristics may be possessed by an individual who has a parent who is of Somali heritage, , but it does not identify that individual as a Somali national. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [64] According to Section 110(6), upon which the Appellant relies, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, that is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. In this appeal, where there is no evidence from or in response to the Minister, the documentary evidence referred to in Section 110(3) must be understood in relation to Section 110(4). [65] When read together, Sections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new (Section 110(4)) evidence, in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [66] The Appellant has submitted no admissible new evidence that is capable of changing the material outcome of this appeal. As such, the RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the RPD's record, and his application for an oral hearing is denied. [67] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not in need of refugee protection and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "Robert Bebbington" Robert Bebbington September 08, 2015 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 2. 2 Exhibit P-3, Further Appeal Record, pp. 2-6. 3 Exhibit P-3, Further Appeal Record, pp. 6-19. 4 Exhibit P-3, Further Appeal Record, pp. 20-22. 5 Exhibit P-3, Further Appeal Record, pp.180-183. 6 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. paras 54 and 55. 7 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257 November 30, 2012 8 Exhibit P-3, Appellant Record, pp.180-183 pp. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, NDP for Somalia, 3 May, 2013, Item 13.15. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-01379