TC1-13100

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-13100 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXa.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXa.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision February 21, 2022 Date de la décision Panel M. Oh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Alp Debreli 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] The Appellant claims to be an individual by the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX. He alleges a fear of persecution from Al-Shabaab in Somalia, which he claims is his country of nationality. The Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") rejected his claim, as it was not satisfied of his identity. The Appellant disputes the RPD's analysis. He argues that the RPD failed to consider all of his evidence and submissions. He believes that the panel effectively imposed a much higher standard of proof for him than was required. [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"),1 the appeal is dismissed. I have independently assessed the evidence, but I agree with the RPD's conclusion. Faced with evidence of competing identities, the RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant had not provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence in support of his declared identity. The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") confirms the RPD's decision and denies his claim for refugee protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that he was born in Mogadishu and that he is a Somali citizen. He describes that due to violence that was occurring there at the time, he left Mogadishu in 2009 along with his mother, brother, and sister. They fled to the XXXX refugee camp in Kenya. The Appellant's mother and siblings stayed there, but the Appellant moved to Nairobi a few months later, where he lived with his cousin. The Appellant resided in Kenya until XXXX 2015. At that time, the Appellant returned to Somalia with the intention of resettling in Mogadishu with his family. His mother and siblings had already returned to Mogadishu earlier in XXXX 2015 due to the death of the Appellant's father in Mogadishu. It is alleged that very soon after his return to Mogadishu, the Appellant received a threatening phone call from someone because of negative comments he had made about Al-Shabaab since his return. Therefore, after spending less than XXXX XXXX in Somalia, the Appellant returned to Kenya. Due to the poor treatment of Somali refugees in Kenya, the Appellant obtained a genuine Kenyan passport that was altered to contain his photograph so that he could flee abroad to make a claim for refugee protection. The Appellant left for the United States ("US") in XXXX 2016. He chose not to seek asylum in the US due to the Trump administration's rhetoric on refugees. The Appellant made his way to the Manitoba border, where he initiated a claim for refugee protection in February 2017. [4] A first panel of the RPD heard and rejected the Appellant's claim in May 2017, but the Federal Court allowed a judicial review of that decision.2 After the matter was referred back to the RPD for redetermination, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ("the Minister") intervened in the claim. The Minister filed evidence about the Appellant's use of a second identity in Kenya, as XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Kenyan citizen who was born on XXXX XXXX, 1991 in Kenya. The Appellant used a Kenyan passport under that identity to apply for a Thai visa and to travel to Thailand in XXXX 2016. He also used the Kenyan passport to apply for a US visa in XXXX 2015 and XXXX 2016. Evidence also arose about the Appellant's use of a third identity, this time as a Somali citizen named XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1992. The Appellant used that identity in Kenya to obtain status as a refugee through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("UNHCR"). The UNHCR issued an eligibility decision in XXXX 2010, finding that he was a prima facie refugee. [5] The second RPD panel considered the evidence that was disclosed in support of the Appellant's declared identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1997. The evidence included a school letter, evidence from his maternal uncle, a cousin, as well as an affidavit from someone who met the Appellant in Canada. However, there were issues with one of the affidavits that undermined its authenticity, and the remaining evidence was not sufficient to establish the Appellant's identity, especially in light of evidence of the Appellant's Kenyan nationality. As the RPD was not satisfied of the Appellant's true identity, it rejected his claim. Role of the Refugee Appeal Division [6] The jurisprudence establishes that the RAD is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination. Deference is owed to the RPD only where the RPD held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence.3 In the present case, I see no reason to show deference to any of the RPD's findings. I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at independent findings based on the evidence before me. Request for an oral hearing [7] The Appellant requests an oral hearing, but he has not submitted any new evidence in his appeal. Absent any new evidence, the RAD is unable to hold an oral hearing. The request is therefore rejected. ANALYSIS [8] The determinative issue in the appeal is whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's identity evidence. I have independently assessed the evidence, but I agree with the RPD's conclusions. The Appellant's burden to establish his true identity [9] I begin by addressing a few issues that the Appellant has raised with respect to his burden to establish his identity. [10] The RPD considered that the Appellant was required to establish his identity, citing section 106 of the IRPA as well as section 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. The panel also cited the cases of Su4 and Duale5 in support of the proposition that it is the Appellant's onus to establish his identity, and that he must make a genuine, substantive effort to do so. [11] The Appellant disputes the RPD's reliance on Su and Duale, as those cases dealt with facts that were distinguishable from the present case. The Appellant instead cites Kaur6 to argue that section 106 of the IRPA does not provide the criteria for proving one's identity, as it merely provides that a failure to establish one's identity in a satisfactory manner can affect credibility. [12] I do not see any error in the RPD's analysis. It is trite law that identity is of central importance to a refugee claim, and that a claimant's failure to prove their identity is fatal to the claim.7 If the refugee claimant's identity has not been established, there is no obligation for the decision-maker to further assess the merits of the claim.8 The jurisprudence confirms that the same principles apply in the Somali context.9 Section 106 of the IRPA requires refugee claimants to provide acceptable documentation establishing their identity; however, it leaves room for the decision-maker to calibrate the assessment to the claimant's individual circumstances, as there may be a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation. Where government-issued identification is not available, as is usually the case with Somali refugees, it may be necessary to turn to secondary sources of evidence, such as from identity witnesses who are able to verify the claimant's identity. [13] There is a line of cases, including Kaur, that cautions decision-makers against drawing adverse inferences from a refugee claimant's resort to fraudulent or improperly obtained travel documents in order to leave a situation of persecution. Those decisions recognize that it is often necessary for refugees to use false travel documents to seek protection abroad, and that reliance on fraudulent documents for this purpose is peripheral to the question of whether or not a person is a genuine refugee.10 However, there are cases where, despite a refugee claimant's insistence that their passport was obtained through fraud, that document may still create legitimate doubts about their true identity, including their nationality.11 As explained below, and as pointed out in the Minister's submissions, the Appellant was not credible about how he obtained the Kenyan passport. In addition, his possession and use of his fraudulent Kenyan passport predated the circumstances that he described in his Basis of Claim ("BOC") narrative as being the reasons for obtaining the document. The Appellant's evidence undermined his allegation that he merely obtained an altered Kenyan passport for the purposes of fleeing persecution that he encountered upon returning to Somalia in XXXX 2015. [14] I recognize that, in general, Somali nationals cannot reasonably be expected to provide government-issued identity documents. Most records were destroyed during the civil war, and many parts of the country still lack competent civil authorities to issue documents such as passports, identity cards, and other civil status documents. Though some identity documents are being issued in parts of the country, most of the Somali population does not possess any kind of identification.12 However, the RPD did not expect the Appellant to provide government-issued identity documents from Somalia. The RPD examined much of the evidence that was submitted, including a UNHCR eligibility decision, a letter from the Appellant's school in Kenya, evidence from his maternal uncle, as well as affidavits from other individuals he knew. However, there were credibility issues with the Appellant's evidence. Though there are some documents that were not specifically addressed, such as letters from Somali community organizations and a property ownership document, that evidence is not sufficiently probative that it would tip the balance of evidence in the Appellant's favour. There was competing evidence supporting different identities, and the evidence in support of the Appellant's declared identity was not sufficient to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities. Evidence in support of identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1991 [15] The Appellant obtained a Kenyan passport in 2014 under the name XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Kenyan citizen born in XXXX, Kenya on XXXX XXXX, 1991.13 The Appellant denies that he is that person, but I find that this evidence, in support of an alternate identity, undermines the genuineness of the Appellant's declared identity. Presumption of Kenyan nationality and presumption of validity of the Kenyan passport [16] The RPD canvassed the jurisprudence and found that as an identity document that was issued by a foreign government, there was a presumption of validity attached to the Kenyan passport. In addition, after considering the Federal Court's decision in Mijatovic14 and paragraph 93 of the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection ("UNHCR Handbook"), the RPD found that the passport created a presumption of Kenyan nationality. The RPD highlighted the passage from the UNHCR Handbook that states that the mere assertion that the passport was only issued as a matter of convenience for travel purposes is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of nationality. The RPD noted how the Appellant had used this passport to travel to Thailand in XXXX 2016, and that he used the passport to obtain a US visa later that year. Both the US and Thailand accepted his identity as presented, and the Appellant did not provide any evidence from Kenya to displace the presumption that he is a Kenyan national. [17] The Appellant argues that Mijatovic is inapplicable, since he does contest the validity of the Kenyan passport, and as he has not merely asserted that the passport was issued to him as a matter of convenience for travel purposes. Citing Chowdhury,15 the Appellant submits that it is an error to rely on paragraph 93 of the UNHCR Handbook to find that a claimant's passport is genuine despite the claimant's testimony that it is fake. In Chowdhury, the Federal Court interpreted paragraph 93 of the UNHCR Handbook narrowly. The Court held that the paragraph dealt only with nationality, and only once the passport was deemed to be valid. It could not be used to counter the assertion that the passport is fake.16 [18] I disagree with the Appellant's position. The RPD correctly considered and applied the case law. It is now well-established that documents issued by foreign authorities, including passports, are presumed to be valid unless evidence is produced to prove otherwise.17 As stated by the RPD, a claimant's possession and use of a national passport creates a rebuttable presumption of nationality. Paragraph 93 of the UNHCR Handbook reads as follows: Nationality may be proved by the possession of a national passport. Possession of such a passport creates a prima facie presumption that the holder is a national of the country of issue, unless the passport itself states otherwise. A person holding a passport showing him to be a national of the issuing country, but who claims that he does not possess that country's nationality, must substantiate his claim, for example, by showing that the passport is a so-called "passport of convenience" (an apparently regular national passport that is sometimes issued by a national authority to non-nationals). However, a mere assertion by the holder that the passport was issued to him as a matter of convenience for travel purposes only is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of nationality. In certain cases, it might be possible to obtain information from the authority that issued the passport. If such information cannot be obtained, or cannot be obtained within reasonable time, the examiner will have to decide on the credibility of the applicant's assertion in weighing all other elements of his story.18 [19] Notwithstanding the decision in Chowdhury, a clear line of authorities has emerged from the Federal Court that supports the RPD's position and its interpretation of the UNHCR Handbook. The jurisprudence establishes that a national passport is evidence of citizenship unless its validity is contested. The onus is then on the claimant to prove that he possesses a different nationality from the one indicated in the passport.19 For instance, in Abdulkadir,20 the applicant possessed an Ethiopian passport, which she claimed was obtained through fraud, as she alleged that she was an Eritrean citizen rather than Ethiopian. In that case, the Honourable Mr. Justice Russell found that a presumption of nationality attached to the passport. The Court found that it was reasonable for the RPD to apply the presumption of nationality in the absence of any direct evidence from the applicant on the issue.21 [20] The presumption created by the Appellant's possession and use of the Kenyan passport is a rebuttable one, and I am willing to accept that under many circumstances, the presumption may be rebutted on the basis of credible sworn testimony. This was confirmed in Sabeni,22 where the respondent possessed a South African passport, which she claimed was obtained through fraud and under a false identity. The Minister argued that the RPD had erred in simply accepting that the passport was improperly obtained. Though the Court acknowledged that the passport created a prima facie presumption of South African nationality, it was reasonable for the RPD to find that the presumption was rebutted through her sworn testimony about fraudulently obtaining the passport from South African authorities under a false identity.23 I have therefore considered the Appellant's testimony on this matter. The Appellant's testimony and evidence about how he obtained an altered Kenyan passport [21] The Appellant submits that he gave detailed and credible testimony about how he obtained the Kenyan passport, but that the RPD failed to engage with his testimony and ignored documentary evidence that supported his story. He argues that the RPD was required to determine the credibility of his story as to how he obtained the passport. I agree with the Appellant. In this case, it is possible for the RAD to reach its own conclusions on the credibility of the Appellant's testimony. The Appellant has raised this issue himself in his appeal. There was extensive testimony given on the matter, which forms part of the evidentiary record. The Appellant has full knowledge of the credibility concerns that were raised during the proceedings at the RPD. In this situation, given the RAD's role to independently assess the evidence and bring finality to the refugee claim, the RAD may assess the credibility of the Appellant's testimony about his Kenyan passport, being corollary to the arguments made in the appeal.24 [22] The Appellant submits that the Kenyan passport is a genuine document, but that it was merely altered to contain his photograph. He says that he only obtained the altered Kenyan passport in order to escape a situation of persecution, and that he has always been consistent and forthcoming about his use of the passport. I cannot agree with this. There were significant credibility issues, which were thoroughly canvassed by the Minister, and which undermined the Appellant's explanations about the Kenyan passport. i. Withholding information about the use of the Kenyan passport prior to 2016 [23] I have reviewed the entirety of the Appellant's testimony, including his testimony with the first RPD panel. I am persuaded by the submissions that were made by the Minister on this issue. As the Minister pointed out, the Appellant was not forthcoming about his use of the Kenyan passport. [24] Initially, the Appellant's BOC narrative described that he obtained the Kenyan passport in 2016 after experiencing a threatening call in Somalia in XXXX 2015, which caused him to fear for his life. The Appellant returned to Kenya, but as he heard that the Kenyan government was planning to send Somali refugees back to Somalia, he obtained a false Kenyan passport.25 However, that information was not accurate. The evidence later revealed that the Appellant had obtained the Kenyan passport in 2014 and that he had used it as early as XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015. As noted by the Minister's submissions, this was prior to any of the Appellant's problems with Al-Shabaab in Somalia.26 [25] In his hearing with the first RPD panel, the Appellant testified that he actually obtained the Kenyan passport in 2014.27 This exposed a number of omissions, which the Appellant was confronted about throughout the proceedings. For instance, the Minister pointed to how the Appellant had applied for a US visa in 2015 using the Kenyan passport. Though the Schedule A form required him to disclose previous visa refusals, the Appellant did not mention the visa refusal from 2015.28 In addition, though the first RPD panel specifically asked the Appellant where he traveled using the Kenyan passport, the Appellant did not mention that he used the passport to travel to Thailand. He only testified that he used it to travel to Somalia and later to the US.29 [26] When confronted with these issues, the Appellant merely stated that no one explained to him that he had to disclose his previous visa refusals. He claimed that the person assisting him with the form was not Somali, that the man was speaking to him in English, and that he would not provide him with an interpreter. The Appellant also explained that he did not mention his travel to Thailand because he perceived his travel to Thailand to be part of the same trip that he took to the US. Though these trips took place several months apart, the Appellant regarded them cumulatively as one big trip. [27] I reject these explanations. As the Minister pointed out during the proceedings, the Appellant's Schedule A form was provided to him as a blank form, and he was given time to have the forms completed. He was even given a list of refugee assistance centres in Winnipeg to assist him in completing the forms.30 The Appellant soon afterwards retained a lawyer to represent him in his refugee claim, and he had a Somali interpreter to assist him in completing his BOC form. Despite this, his US visa refusal did not come to light until the Minister discovered and disclosed this information in April 2019, more than two years later.31 The Appellant's explanation for omitting his travel to Thailand is also not credible. His trip to Thailand took place in XXXX 2016.32 The Appellant did not leave for the US until XXXX 2016.33 Even if the trip to Thailand only took place to bolster his application for a US visa, it was obviously not part of the same trip, and I do not see any reasonable explanation for the Appellant's failure to mention it in response to the RPD's request for this specific information. [28] Given the circumstances, it is likely that the Appellant was intentionally concealing this information because of the adverse inferences that could be drawn from his use of this false identity in the years preceding his departure from Kenya. ii. Inconsistent and evolving accounts about how the Appellant procured the passport [29] Contrary to the Appellant's arguments, his testimony about how he obtained the Kenyan passport was not credible. I agree instead with the Minister's submissions.34 The information about how the Appellant obtained the passport came out in a piecemeal fashion, with one account contradicting the other, and evolving over the course of the proceedings. [30] The Appellant gave testimony to both RPD panels on how he obtained the Kenyan passport. To the first panel, the Appellant was very vague in his testimony. He stated that the smuggler, whom he met only a single time, took his photograph, took $XXXX USD from him, and then got the passport for him. He described that the smuggler traveled to XXXX and then a week later gave the passport to a bus driver, who had the Appellant pick up the passport from a bus station.35 [31] The Appellant provided a different version of events in a later hearing that took place on April 22, 2021 with the second RPD panel. During that hearing, in explaining his ability to pass through the airport in Kenya and travel using an altered passport, the Appellant admitted that not only did he have a Kenyan passport in his possession, but he also had a Kenyan national identity card. He made it seem as if it were obvious that he would have such a document, since people with Kenyan passports would also need to have a Kenyan identity card. He described waiting in line at an office to have the Kenyan identity card issued. The Appellant testified that his fingerprints were taken, and that the same information that was in the Kenyan passport was given in the Kenyan identity card. XXXX XXXX months later, in 2014, the card was issued. When the Minister's Counsel confronted the Appellant about his failure to mention his possession of this card at his first RPD hearing, the Appellant denied being asked anything about it. He regarded the national identity card and the passport as separate matters. [32] The Appellant's testimony deteriorated from there. Having already described standing in line at a government office to obtain his Kenyan identity card, the Appellant changed his testimony to say that he was at a government office to obtain his passport. The Minister's Counsel noted that this appeared to be inconsistent with his previous testimony, but the Appellant insisted that he went to a Kenyan government office to have his photograph taken for his passport. He testified that in fact, the smuggler's original plan did not work out. And so, rather than his smuggler going to XXXX alone as he had described to the first RPD panel, the Appellant testified that he personally attended the Kenyan passport office in XXXX along with his smuggler. The Appellant stated that this version of events was correct, and that perhaps he had forgotten to mention it to the first RPD panel because it was his first time appearing before the RPD. He stated that he was not required to provide all the details, and he felt that he should not be penalized for this. He maintained that it was still true that he only met his smuggler once, and that the passport was later put on a bus and that this was how he received it. [33] I cannot understand why the smuggler's original, failed plan was the version of events that the Appellant recalled as being accurate when he recounted these events to the first RPD panel. I place no weight on this explanation. Considering how this testimony arose, it is more likely that the Appellant's testimony merely shifted in response to concerns that were put to him by the Minister's Counsel. I find that the Appellant's inconsistent accounts seriously undermine the credibility of his testimony on how he obtained the Kenyan passport. Likelihood of Kenyan passport fraud [34] The Appellant faults the RPD for failing to consider documentary evidence that supported his testimony about obtaining the Kenyan passport through fraud. I see no error here. [35] The Appellant points to evidence about Kenyan citizenship laws, arguing that it is unlikely that he was able to obtain Kenyan citizenship under his circumstances. Kenyan citizenship laws provide for citizenship if the person is born to either a mother or father who is a Kenyan citizen. Therefore, children of Somali nationals who are born in Kenya are not entitled to Kenyan citizenship. In addition, given the length of time it would take for a person to obtain permanent residence status and eventually citizenship, the Appellant believes it would have been exceedingly unlikely for him to legally obtain Kenyan citizenship after arriving in the country from Somalia as an asylum-seeker. On the other hand, the documentary evidence indicated that corruption and bribery were rampant in the Kenyan government, and there were reports of how Kenyan immigration and police officers were complicit in allowing undocumented refugees to enter Kenya, and even facilitated the acquisition of Kenyan identification documents. [36] The above context is a relevant factor to consider, but the party seeking to establish that a document is fraudulent cannot rebut the presumption of validity of an official document merely on the basis that fraudulent documents are widely available in the country of origin.36 Evidence of document fraud that is facilitated by Kenyan immigration and police officers merely establishes that false documentation could be available to the Appellant. This may be a plausible scenario, but it does not mean that this is what occurred in the Appellant's case. [37] In addition, the Appellant's arguments about Kenyan citizenship laws strike me as being circular. The Appellant's ethnicity as a Somali is not in doubt, but his nationality is in question. Despite this, the Appellant's position presumes that neither of his parents are Kenyan citizens. I see little reason why this should be assumed. There are significant populations of ethnic Somalis outside of Somalia, particularly across East Africa, including in countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, and Djibouti, including ethnic Somalis who do not have Somali nationality.37 The documentary evidence indicates that the traditional Somali ethnic homeland crosses nation-state borders, and the Somali diaspora population was one of the largest proportional diaspora populations in the world.38 It is possible that at least one of the Appellant's parents is a Kenyan citizen. The arguments about Kenyan citizenship laws are therefore not persuasive. [38] The RPD also drew an adverse inference from the Appellant's failure to contact Kenyan authorities to obtain verification about his lack of status in the country. I do not find it necessary to rely on this factor in my own assessment. The Appellant did not provide credible testimony about the Kenyan passport, and I find that his possession and previous use of the Kenyan passport undermines the truthfulness of his declared identity. Evidence in support of identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1992 [39] During the hearing with the first RPD panel, the Appellant testified that all documentation about his family's registration at the Dadaab refugee camp had been lost. However, in July 2019, after the Minister intervened in the claim, the Appellant was able to obtain a copy of his UNHCR eligibility decision, which was dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2010. The problem is that this document revealed the use of yet another name and date of birth, this time as XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1992.39 The RPD correctly found that this document was of little value in establishing the Appellant's identity, as both the name and date of birth were inconsistent with his declared identity. [40] The Appellant faults the RPD for rejecting the UNHCR decision as evidence of his identity. He says that the RPD disregarded his reasonable explanations for the discrepancies in the document, as well as documentary evidence that supported his explanations. That is, the UNHCR officer misheard his name and therefore wrote down the wrong first name. Also, since he was told that he had to be over 18 years old to have a document issued to him, his date of birth was written down as XXXX XXXX, 1992. The Appellant has also pointed to possible social and cultural considerations, such as the use of Somali nicknames that may end up being used in official contexts, the lack of importance placed on age and dates of birth among Somalis, and low rates of literacy in Somalia. The Appellant reiterates that when he picked up the document from the UNHCR office, he realized that there were errors in it, but he was told that it would take a long time to correct them, and so he decided not to take any action to make the corrections. The RPD noted that the document expired in 2012 and was not renewed, but the Appellant believes that his failure to renew the document was understandable. He points to documentary evidence confirming that refugee certificates with two-year validity periods were being issued by the UNHCR and that since December 2012, the registration of refugees and the issuance of documentation to refugees in urban centres in Kenya had been suspended. [41] I reject the explanations for the errors in the document. In the Appellant's initial testimony on this issue, on July 19, 2019, the Appellant based his explanation on unsubstantiated accusations against the UNHCR officer that registered him in Kenya. He claimed not only that she had misheard his name, but also that the UNHCR officer committed fraud, for reasons that are nonsensical. The date of birth given in the UNHCR decision would have made the Appellant five years older, making him an 18-year-old adult at the time of the document's issuance. The Appellant testified that the officer did him this favour because he did not have his mother and father with him. By making him an adult, she said there would have been no way for him to be removed. However, even leaving aside the lack of logical rationale here, the Appellant did not arrive in Kenya as an unaccompanied minor. He testified that he arrived there with his mother and siblings, and that they all went to the XXXX refugee camp together before the Appellant went into the care of his cousin in Nairobi.40 In addition, the Appellant's testimony for his failure to have the decision corrected was that there was a five-hour long queue at the office. As this was the only document to corroborate the Appellant's identity while living in Kenya, I do not find it reasonable that neither he nor any of the people caring for his personal affairs bothered to have this information corrected during its period of validity. [42] The fact that the Appellant did not renew the document after 2012, and that he could not have had the opportunity to do so, is immaterial. It is possible that the Appellant approached the UNHCR in or around 2010 and registered himself with them as a Somali asylum-seeker. It is possible that he did this because he was seeking protection, or it could be that he did this for other purposes. The fact remains, however, that the contents of this document cannot be relied upon to reliably establish the Appellant's identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1997. Instead, the document casts further doubt on the Appellant's declared identity. Evidence in support of the Appellant's declared identity [43] The Appellant provided the following evidence in support of his identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Somali national born on XXXX XXXX, 1997: * An affidavit and oral testimony from an identity witness, XXXX XXXX XXXX;41 * An affidavit from the Appellant's cousin, who lives in Kenya;42 * An affidavit from a Somali person who met the Appellant in Canada;43 * A letter from the XXXX XXXX School;44 * A letter from XXXX XXXX, which is a Somali community organization in Canada;45 * A letter from the XXXX XXXX, another Somali organization in Canada;46 and * A land sale document from Somalia, which names the Appellant's father as a Somali citizen.47 [44] Like the RPD, I find that the evidence is insufficient to establish the Appellant's declared identity due to the lack of credibility and probative value of much of the evidence. Affidavit and testimony from the Appellant's witness, XXXX XXXX XXXX [45] One of the stronger sources of evidence in support of the Appellant's identity was from a man who described himself as the Appellant's maternal uncle, XXXX XXXX XXXX. This individual acted as an identity witness in the hearing that was held with the first RPD panel, before the Minister intervened in the claim. [46] The RPD found that the witness' affidavit and testimony carried limited weight. The RPD accepted that the Appellant and his witness had met a single time in Kenya in 2016, as described in the affidavit, but the panel considered that the affidavit and testimony were insufficient to overcome the issues with the Appellant's name, date of birth, and nationality. The affidavit was silent on the Appellant's place of birth, citizenship, and whether the Appellant held any status in Kenya. Though the witness believed that the Appellant had no status in Kenya, he clarified that he believed this because the Appellant and his mother told him this. The second RPD panel did not have the opportunity to examine the witness, and so the panel could not ask questions of its own that were pertinent to the Appellant's identity. [47] The Appellant believes that the RPD should have placed much greater weight on his identity witness' testimony and affidavit. The witness' testimony spoke to factors relevant to the Appellant's identity, such as his name, his age, and his family composition. He gave detailed testimony about the Appellant's siblings, where the Appellant's mother lives in Mogadishu, how they are related, as well as information on their clan membership. He testified about meeting the Appellant twice in Nairobi in 2014 as well as in 2016, about seeing the Appellant's mother in Mogadishu in 2016, and about how he and the Appellant's mother used to know each other in Somalia. He even stated that he sent her financial support after her husband's death. He also testified to his belief that the Appellant did not have any legal status in Kenya. [48] The Appellant argues that contrary to the RPD's finding, his witness' evidence obviously refuted the presumption of his Kenyan nationality as well as the identity contained in the Kenyan passport. Since the Appellant's own testimony was credible and trustworthy, if the RPD disbelieved his witness' testimony, the Appellant believes that the panel was obliged to make a clear finding that his witness' testimony was not truthful. He submits that the RPD failed to engage with the rest of his witness' testimony and disregarded it without giving reasons. [49] The Appellant also points out that his witness was available all day at his July 19, 2019 hearing, but that he was denied the chance to testify because the RPD adjourned as a result of the sudden and late intervention from the Minister on Article 1F(b) exclusion. [50] I agree that the RPD should have addressed the credibility of the witness' testimony. If credible, this witness' testimony would have been capable of speaking to facts that are relevant to the Appellant's identity, such as his true name, his age, and family composition. I have reviewed the testimony and considered the Appellant's arguments as well as the submissions that were made to the RPD. On the credibility of the witness' testimony, I am persuaded by the Minister's arguments. i. Inconsistencies regarding family relationship [51] The Appellant and his witness were unable to give clear or credible evidence about precisely how they were related. [52] In his affidavit, the Appellant's witness wrote that he was the Appellant's maternal uncle.48 In the hearing with the first RPD panel, the witness clarified that he and the Appellant's mother are cousins.49 In his testimony with the second RPD panel, the Appellant agreed that this was the nature of their family relationship, that his mother and his witness were first cousins. He explained that his maternal grandfather and his witness' father were brothers. The father of the Appellant's mother was XXXX XXXX, and his witness' father was XXXX XXXX. This is where the confusion arises. As the Minister pointed out, this did not make sense. In accordance with the Somali naming system, Somalis had a given name at birth, followed by their father's name and then their paternal grandfather's name.50 If the witness' father was XXXX XXXX, then his own name would be XXXX XXXX XXXX, rather than XXXX XXXX XXXX. If the Appellant's mother and his witness had the family relationship that was alleged, they would have had the same third name, but they did not. The Appellant did not address this issue. ii. Inconsistent evidence about the death of the Appellant's father [53] As the Minister also pointed out, the witness did not give consistent evidence about the death of the Appellant's father and the whereabouts of the Appellant's family in 2015. [54] The Appellant alleged that his father died in XXXX 2015 in Somalia, and that his death precipitated the return of his mother and his siblings to Mogadishu XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, in oral testimony, the witness stated that the Appellant's father died in XXXX 2015. He remembered this because the Appellant's mother was still living in Nairobi at the time, and she needed money in order to travel back to Somalia after her husband's death. However, it was actually the Appellant who traveled back to Somalia in XXXX 2015, and by that time, his mother and siblings had already been living in Somalia for several months. iii. Witness' availability to testify during the proceedings [55] The Appellant seems to blame the Minister's late Article 1F(b) intervention for his inability to present his witness to the second RPD panel. However, in my review of the record, it seems that the RPD and the Minister were both in favour of hearing evidence from the witness during the July 19, 2019 hearing. It was the Appellant's Counsel who insisted on adjourning because of the late intervention on Article 1F(b) and the potential for the witness' testimony to touch on that issue. Whatever merit there may have been for those concerns, I note that the RPD heard additional testimony during another hearing on April 22, 2021, and the Appellant did not make an application to change the date of that hearing in order to accommodate his witness. The Appellant was content to proceed without giving the second RPD panel the opportunity to question the person he describes as his main identity witness. The Appellant had a fair opportunity to present any witnesses he wished to present. The RPD cannot be faulted under these circumstances. [56] I acknowledge that the absence of an identity witness for cross-examination does not make their evidence inherently unreliable or untrustworthy. However, in this case, it should be noted that the witness gave his testimony to the first RPD panel, prior to the Minister's intervention and prior to the disclosure of much of the evidence that placed doubt on the Appellant's declared identity. The second RPD panel did not have the opportunity clarify the witness' evidence in light of the contradictions noted above. The discrepancies in the record therefore remained, and they continue to place doubt on the credibility of the witness' evidence. For the above reasons, I place no weight on this witness' evidence. Affidavit from the Appellant's cousin in Kenya [57] The Appellant provided an affidavit from someone in Kenya who claims to be his cousin, in support of his identity. The RPD correctly found that the affidavit was likely not genuine. [58] The affidavit states that the author is a Somali citizen who lives in Nairobi. She states that the Appellant was born in Mogadishu on XXXX XXXX, 1997, that he is a Somali citizen, and that he lived in Nairobi from 2010 to 2016. During most of that time, while the Appellant was attending school, he lived in the affiant's home in Nairobi. The document was sworn before a commissioner for oaths, XXXX XXXX XXXX.51 [59] There were numerous typographical, spelling, and grammar errors in the affidavit, which the RPD considered to be unusual, as it was completed by a commissioner for oaths. The Appellant argues that by relying on those errors, the RPD wrongly compared the affidavit, which was sworn in Kenya, against Canadian standards. Though English is an official language in Kenya, Swahili is the country's most widely spoken language. The Appellant suggests that the errors in the document actually boost the document's authenticity, as it shows that the affidavit was not edited and tailored. The Appellant quotes from Federal Court decisions that say that spelling, grammar, and typographical errors cannot suffice to find that a document is fraudulent. [60] I agree with the Appellant that errors in the body of the affidavit, and even in the affiant's name, could plausibly have been made by a commissioner of oaths. The errors that concern me are those that appear in template portions of the document, such as the header and signature block, that follow a standard format and would be repeatedly reused by the commissioner. For instance, the header of the affidavit reads: "IN THE MATTER OF OATHS AND STATUARY DECLARATION ACT".52 Next to that, it states, "LOWS OF KENYA", where it should say, "LAWS OF KENYA". According to the documentary evidence, affidavits are regulated under the "Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act", and the language that appears at the top of the affidavit - where the typographical errors are located - is actually part of a standard format for affidavits.53 Similarly, the signature block states, "BEFERE ME" and "COMMISSIONER FOR AOTHS", again in a portion of the affidavit that would be routinely reused in other affidavits from this commissioner. Even if English is not the most widely spoken language in Kenya, it is one of the two official languages in the country, and English is an official language that is used in the Kenyan legal system and courts.54 [61] I agree with the RPD that such obvious errors in standard template portions of the affidavit, including in language that should be standardized in a Kenyan affidavit, would not likely be found in a genuine affidavit from Kenya. Where such errors appear in official stamps and template portions of documents, the Federal Court has found it reasonable to draw adverse inferences about the document's reliability.55 I place no weight on the affidavit. Affidavit of XXXX XXXX XXXX [62] There was another affidavit, this time from someone who met the Appellant in Canada in XXXX 2018. This individual was born and raised in Somalia, and he is now a permanent resident of Canada. His affidavit indicates that after meeting the Appellant, the Appellant told him about his refugee claim and the problems he faced in Kenya and Somalia. The affiant says that he is acquainted with the Appellant's parents, as well as the Appellant's paternal uncle in Dubai. He confirms that the Appellant is a person of Somali origin, and that he belongs to the Murusade of the Hawiye clan.56 [63] The RPD correctly gave little weight to this evidence. There were reasons to doubt the probative value and reliability of the statements contained in the affidavit. The affiant did not explain how he was acquainted with the Appellant's parents, nor did he explain on what basis he knew the Appellant's Somali origins or clan membership. Since the Appellant and the affiant met in Canada, it was unclear whether he was simply reiterating what he had learned from the Appellant during the time that the two became acquainted in Canada, or whether he had firsthand knowledge about his identity, residence history, and family composition from some earlier point in time. These facts were not elaborated upon, as the affiant did not appear as a witness, despite the Appellant's initial intention to have him testify. The absence of relevant details from the affidavit causes me to reach the same conclusion as the RPD. Due to its lack of probative value, I place little weight on this evidence. The letter from the XXXX XXXX School [64] The Appellant testified that he was fortunate to receive an education when he lived in Kenya, as his cousin's husband paid for his schooling in Nairobi. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, a letter was issued by the XXXX XXXX School, confirming that a student by the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX attended their school from 2010 to 2015.57 I place no weight on this letter in establishing the Appellant's identity. [65] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by disregarding his school letter. While the letter is not direct proof of his nationality, he argues that it is proof of certain aspects of his personal identity, such as his name, and indirectly also his nationality. [66] The letter does not have significant evidentiary value in these respects. The first RPD panel asked the Appellant how he was registered with his school. The Appellant testified that it was not necessary to provide them with any documentation. He explained that it was well-known that Somalis were coming to Kenya as refugees, and so the schools just accepted them because they needed money.58 In fact, the name given by the school for the Appellant is not consistent with the documentation he had from the UNHCR at the time that he was in attendance there.59 Nor is it consistent with the Kenyan national identity card and passport that the Appellant possessed in 2014 when he was attending the school. The Appellant informed the RPD that he lost his school identification.60 I do not doubt that the Appellant could have registered with a school without proper identification. However, since the Appellant has casually used multiple different identities in Kenya for different purposes, it is unclear on what basis the school's letter can reliably serve as confirmation of the Appellant's declared identity. The letter does not speak to the Appellant's age or date of birth, and so it is incapable of verifying that aspect of his identity. I also do not see on what basis the letter confirms the Appellant's Somali citizenship even indirectly. [67] In addition, the record shows that the Appellant did not present an original copy of the school letter to the RPD. During the hearing on July 19, 2019, he testified that the document was couriered to him, but it was not an original. He stated that he did not know if maybe he left it at home or not. This is despite the letter's issuance and disclosure to the RPD in 2017. Given the lack of an original copy and the letter's inability to speak reliably to the Appellant's identity, I give it no weight. Letters from Somali community organizations [68] The Appellant provided letters from two Somali community organizations that are located in Toronto: XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX. Both letters were authored by the same individual, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who identifies himself as the XXXX XXXX of both organizations.61 The RPD did not address these letters in its decision. I have assessed the documents, but I find that they have little probative value in establishing the Appellant's identity. [69] The XXXX XXXX letter states that the Appellant underwent a community verification assessment, which was conducted in Somali. They assessed the Appellant's language skills, background, his knowledge of geography, history, heritage, "socio political", clan lineage, and Somali culture. Through this process, the organization concluded that the Appellant is XXXX XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1997, and a citizen of Somalia.62 The XXXX XXXX letter indicated that they conducted a very similar community verification assessment, and they came to the very same conclusion.63 [70] There is nothing to indicate that these organizations were acquainted with the Appellant prior to his arrival in Canada. Despite the author's inability to speak to the Appellant's personal identity, he nonetheless makes conclusions about the Appellant's true name and date of birth. The Appellant argues that this kind of evidence nonetheless carries weight in proving his Somali nationality, since Somali nationality is inextricably linked to ethnicity. He cites evidence about Somali citizenship being based on patrilineal descent. A person with a Somali father is considered to be Somali, regardless of where they live, and a Somali is defined as a person who by origin, language, and tradition, belonged to the Somali nation. A Somali person could also acquire Somali citizenship while residing abroad, if they declared to be willing to renounce any foreign citizenship.64 For these reasons, the Appellant believes that his knowledge of the Somali language, culture, history, and geography can indeed be relevant evidence of his origins and his nationality. Even if the evidence was not conclusive of his identity, that did not mean that it could not be relied upon in combination with his other evidence to cumulatively establish his identity. [71] The Appellant's Somali ethnicity is a relevant factor, but it is not determinative. As mentioned, there are significant populations of ethnic Somalis in other countries in East Africa, and particularly in Kenya, who are not Somali nationals. It is possible for ethnic Somalis who are citizens of other countries to speak Somali fluently, to have knowledge about Somali culture, clan lineage, and even basic knowledge of Somali geography. The Appellant even gave testimony to this effect, stating that there were members of his own extended family that were ethnically Somali, but who possessed valid Kenyan citizenship, such as his cousin's son. The Appellant's case illustrates why this type of evidence is not a reliable indicator of nationality, even if it may be of assistance in determining the Appellant's ethnicity as a Somali. Not all ethnic Somalis are Somali citizens. [72] While a depth of knowledge about a particular region where the Appellant lived in Somalia could assist in placing his origins there, neither letter goes into any detail in this regard, making it difficult to assess whether the questions asked of the Appellant could convincingly support the Appellant's Somali nationality. Ultimately, the evidence from XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX is compatible with the Appellant's declared identity, but to the extent that it speaks only generally to matters that are not necessarily specific to Somali nationals or the Appellant's personal identity, it could also be compatible with the alternate identities that have arisen in this claim. Land ownership document [73] There was also a land ownership document, that seems to have been issued in 1986 in relation to the sale of a house in Mogadishu to XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is described as a Somali citizen and a resident of Mogadishu.65 This name matches with the name that the Appellant has given for his father. [74] The Appellant submits that the RPD failed to consider this document, which he believes was relevant evidence of his identity. I place little weight on the document, due to its lack of probative value. Apart from the name, purportedly of the Appellant's father, there is little to tie the Appellant to the evidence. Even if genuine, it would not assist me in determining the Appellant's true name, as either XXXXorXXXX XXXX, or his date of birth. Determination on identity [75] I have independently assessed the evidence and reached the same conclusion as the RPD. Even after considering the evidence cumulatively, the Appellant's declared identity has not been established on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant provided a fraudulent affidavit, and the testimony from his identity witness was not credible. [76] I recognize that there are significant challenges for Somali nationals to corroborate their identities. However, the onus still rests with the Appellant to establish his true identity through the means available to him. I am not satisfied that the RPD imposed an overly stringent standard of proof on the Appellant, nor do I think that the RPD wrongly required evidence that unduly limited the potential sources of evidence available to the Appellant. [77] Despite the conditions in Somalia, its residents are not unreachable. Most Somalis reportedly communicated via email and mobile phone.66 According to the country conditions evidence, mobile networks provided extensive coverage throughout Somalia. Telecommunication companies had installed countrywide networks of wireless stations and provided affordable equipment that enabled local communities to stay connected. Phone and internet services were reportedly of high quality. Significant numbers of Somalis possessed mobile phones, with a 2013 study showing that ownership rates were as high as 78.5% in South-Central Somalia.67 Penetration rates for mobile communications were even higher in Somalia than in some of its neighbouring countries, such as Ethiopia and Djibouti.68 Indeed, the Appellant testified that when he went to Mogadishu in XXXX 2015, he immediately received a SIM card when he arrived, which his mother gave him. The Appellant was still in contact with his mother in Mogadishu over the phone. I can see that the Appellant testified that she is "an old lady" (she is now 52 years old), with no one able to help her to write a letter or affidavit, and that she feared that his brother might die in an explosion if he went to assist her. However, the Appellant has now had several years to corroborate his declared identity from family members and others from Somalia who could speak to his identity. In this context, it is not reasonable that the best evidence that the Appellant has been able to provide is a photocopy of a letter from his school in Kenya, which did not state his date of birth or nationality, an affidavit from someone who met the Appellant in Canada, and a land sale document that was supposedly issued to the Appellant's father in 1986. [78] The Appellant's use of other identities in Kenya seriously undermined his declared identity, and the evidence he provided was not sufficient to overcome the problems that arose. CONCLUSION [79] For the above reasons, I agree with the RPD's decision. The Appellant's identity has not been established. Identity is a threshold issue in refugee claims. The RPD and the RAD cannot recognize a refugee claimant as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection if their identity has not been established. I therefore confirm the RPD's negative decision. The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) Matthew Oh Matthew Oh February 21, 2022 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Abdi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 93. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 157; see also Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 (CanLII), [2019] 2 FCR 597. 4 Su v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 743, at para. 4. 5 Duale v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 150, at para. 19. 6 Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 103. 7 Elmi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 773, at para. 4. 8 Jin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 126, at paras. 13 and 26; see also Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 831 at para. 18. 9 Elmi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 773 at para. 22; Shafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 714 at para. 27; Hassan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 383 at para. 6. 10 Rasheed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 587, at paras. 18-20; Teneqexhiu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 397, at para. 5; Lubana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 116, at paras. 11 and 18; and Denis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1182, at para. 55. 11 See Abdulkadir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 318, at paras. 62-63; Abrha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 226, at paras. 30-34. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package ("NDP") for Somalia (October 30, 2020), item 3.4, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR) SOM200235.E. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 15, at p. 234. 14 Mijatovic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 685. 15 Chowdhury v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1242. 16 Ibid., at paras. 41-42. 17 Ramalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 7241 at para. 5; Rasheed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 587 at paras. 19-20; Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1133 at para. 10; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Inarukundo, 2015 FC 314 at paras. 7-8. 18 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, published in 1979 re-issued in 1992 and 2019, Geneva, February 2019, p. 26, at para. 93. 19 Adar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 16800; Mathews v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1387 at para. 11; Yah Abedalaziz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1066 at para. 42; Becirevic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 447 at paras. 8-9; Mijatovic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 685 at para. 26; Abrha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 226 at paras. 30-34. 20 Abdulkadir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 318. 21 Ibid., at paras. 62-63. 22 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Sabeni, 2018 FC 800. 23 Ibid., at paras. 22-25. 24 Nuriddinova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1093, at paras. 38-39 and 47-48; see also Qiu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 166, at paras. 27-28. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim narrative, p. 25 at paras. 5-6. 26 Ibid., RPD Record, Minister's Written Submissions, at p. 293. 27 Ibid., Exhibit 10, at p. 153. 28 Ibid., Exhibit 1, Schedule A form, at p. 30. 29 Ibid., Exhibit 10, at pp. 136-137. 30 Ibid., Exhibit 1, Canada Border Services Agency officer declaration, at p. 45. 31 Ibid., Exhibit 7, at p. 81. 32 Ibid., Exhibit 16, at p. 239. 33 Ibid., Exhibit 1, Schedule 12 form, at p. 36. 34 Ibid., Minister's Written Representations, at p. 293. 35 Ibid., Exhibit 10, at pp. 138-139. 36 Reis v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 1289 at para. 26; Cheema v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 224 at paras. 7-8; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Inarukundo, 2015 FC 314 at paras. 7-8. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (October 30, 2020), items 3.15, 3.17, IRB, RIR SOM106079.E, and 3.18. 38 Ibid., item 3.18, at p. 45. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 13, at p. 189. 40 Ibid., Exhibit 10, at pp. 146-147. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 57. 42 Ibid., Exhibit 4, at p. 58. 43 Ibid., Exhibit 9, at p. 105. 44 Ibid., Exhibit 4, at p. 56. 45 Ibid., Exhibit 4, at p. 55. 46 Ibid., Exhibit 9, at p. 104. 47 Ibid., Exhibit 8, at p. 98. 48 Ibid., Exhibit 4, at p. 57. 49 Ibid., Exhibit 10, at p. 174. 50 Ibid., Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (October 30, 2020), item 3.2, at section 2.2. 51 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 58. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid., Exhibit 11, NDP for Kenya (April 16, 2021), item 9.2, IRB, RIR KEN105566.E. 54 Ibid., items 1.3, 1.6, and 9.4. 55 Digaf v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1255 at paras. 46 and 49-50. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 9, at p. 105. 57 Ibid., Exhibit 4, at p. 56. 58 Ibid., Exhibit 10, at p. 149. 59 Ibid., Exhibit 13, at p. 189. 60 Ibid., Exhibit 10, at pp. 152-153. 61 Ibid., Exhibit 4, at p. 55; Exhibit 9, at p. 104. 62 Ibid., Exhibit 4, at p. 55. 63 Ibid., Exhibit 9, at p. 104. 64 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 122-123. 65 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, at p. 98. 66 Ibid., Exhibit 3, NDP for Somalia (October 30, 2020), item 3.9, IRB, RIR SOM105755.E. 67 Ibid., item 1.14, IRB, RIR SOM105092.E. 68 Ibid., item 3.18, at pp. 56-57. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-13100 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