TB8-30064

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-30064 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 29, 2020 Date de la décision Panel M. Oh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Lani Gozlan 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 a woman by the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Somalia. She says that she fears gender-based persecution from Al-Shabaab. The Refugee Protection Division ("RPD") rejected the Appellant's claim, as it was not satisfied of her identity. The Appellant challenges the RPD's assessment. [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"), the appeal is dismissed. The RPD was faced with evidence of multiple competing identities. It correctly determined that the Appellant had not established her identity on a balance of probabilities. The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") therefore confirms the RPD's negative determination. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX2017 at Pearson International Airport. The Appellant possessed a Dutch passport under the name XXXX XXXX. Initially, she insisted that she was the individual depicted in the passport. However, a Canada Border Services Agency ("CBSA") officer confronted her with information that she had been taken off of a flight bound for Canada earlier that month from Dublin to Toronto. When the CBSA officer informed her that she would be denied entry to Canada, the Appellant revealed that the passport was not hers.1 She then disclosed that her true name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She declared that she had been residing in the United Kingdom ("UK") and that she had made a failed asylum claim there. She informed the officer that she wished to file a refugee claim in Canada. [4] The Appellant retained her current immigration lawyer, who assisted her in completing her Basis of Claim ("BOC") form, in which she continued to assert that she is XXXX XXXX. She described that she was born and raised in Mogadishu, and that Al-Shabaab men approached her father in December 2010, attempting to force the Appellant to marry one of their soldiers. They soon afterwards took her father and beat him over the course of three days. They released him, and told him that they would return to collect the Appellant. As a result, the Appellant went into hiding. In January 2011, Al-Shabaab returned to her family's home, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The Appellant's mother went to fetch her from hiding and took her to Al Shibiye, an area close to Afgoye. She remained there for several months until her mother's friend obtained a false passport for her to flee the country. The Appellant claimed that she left Somalia on November 30, 2011 with her mother's friend. They parted ways somewhere in Europe, where the friend guided the Appellant to an airport gate for her to board a flight to the UK. Upon arrival in the UK, the Appellant made an asylum claim at the airport. The claim was later denied, as the UK Border Agency believed that the Appellant was assuming a false identity, and that she was in fact another individual who had previously obtained status in the UK under a different name. The Appellant denies that she is that individual. As her asylum claim was denied in the UK, the Appellant located a smuggler to provide a false passport for her to travel to Canada. [5] However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ("the Minister") intervened in the claim, as it found information that the Appellant may actually be another individual by the name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, with a different date of birth. The Minister provided information from the website of a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where a person resembling the Appellant was listed as a Somali woman awaiting sponsorship. The woman was listed under the name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX2 For comparison, the Appellant's BOC form indicates that the Appellant was born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.3 The Minister also produced evidence that the Appellant, as XXXX XXXX XXXX, had an address listed in Lulea, Sweden.4 [6] The Appellant disclosed various documents that she had in the UK, confirming that she used the name XXXX XXXX XXXX in that country. This included the UK Border Agency's asylum decision, in which the Appellant's identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX was rejected. Authorities believed that the Appellant was instead a woman by the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who had indefinite leave to remain in the UK. [7] The RPD heard the Appellant's claim over the course of two sittings, which took place on September 27, 2018 and October 30, 2018. On November 6, 2018, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found that the Appellant's identity had not been established. Role of the Refugee Appeal Division [8] 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.5 [9] 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 [10] The Appellant requests an oral hearing, however no new evidence has been provided on appeal. As there is no basis for an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA, the request is denied. ANALYSIS [11] The appeal raises the following issues: a) Whether the RPD erred in finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness; and b) Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's supporting evidence. [12] These will be addressed below. a) Whether the RPD erred in finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness [13] For various reasons, the RPD found that the Appellant was not a credible witness with respect to her identity as well as her allegations of persecution in Somalia. I agree with the RPD's findings. i. The RPD's treatment of the UK asylum decision [14] Significant portions of the RPD's decision deal with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX rejecting the Appellant's identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX, as well as the Appellant's credibility regarding her XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Somalia. [15] I will note from the outset that it seems that the RPD did not draw any negative inference from the variation in the name used by the Appellant when she came to Canada, as compared to the name she used in the UK, which was XXXX XXXX XXXX. During her first hearing, the Appellant explained that according to Somali naming customs, her surname consists of her father's first name and her grandfather's first name. By way of illustration, her father's full name is XXXX XXXX XXXX6. The Appellant testified that when she came to Canada, she decided to use the Somali spelling of her father's first name (XXXX) instead of the English spelling (XXXX), which she used in the UK. She also stated that she was told to exclude her father's surname. The RPD seems to have accepted this explanation. The RPD's findings [16] The RPD found that the UK asylum decision was persuasive. According to that decision, the Appellant filed an asylum claim XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX after arriving in a UK-bound flight from Rome XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX2011. However, that same morning, a passenger by the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was interviewed by Italian police at Rome Fiumicino Airport. The Italian police were concerned that XXXX XXXX XXXX was not the rightful holder of her travel document. After being referred to a Risk and Liaison Overseas Network ("RALON") immigration liaison officer, Ms. XXXX was able to confirm where she went to school in the UK, the lessons she was taught, the bus number she took to school, as well as her father's details. She spoke a reasonable amount of English. After removing her veil, Ms. XXXX was able to satisfy the Italian officers that she was the individual depicted in the travel document. She then boarded flight XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but there is no record of her having arrived there. Closed circuit television ("CCTV") recordings at the terminal showed that the Appellant disembarked from the very same flight. According to the UK asylum decision, she is seen handing her travel document to a Dutch national by the name ofXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She then proceeded to initiate an asylum claim under the name XXXX XXXX XXXX.7 The UK authorities were satisfied that it was the Appellant who had traveled on XXXX XXXX travel document. As to the possibility that the Appellant might have simply assumed Ms. XXXX identity for the purpose of travel, the decision notes that the woman interviewed in Rome had satisfied both the RALON immigration liaison officer and the Italian police that she was the individual depicted in the travel document. The decision concludes that the Appellant is XXXX XXXX. [17] The Appellant attempted to point out a number of weaknesses in the UK decision. For instance, UK authorities did not fingerprint her in order to compare her fingerprints to those on file for Ms. XXXX. They also did not seek out Ms. XXXX father in order for him to confirm that the Appellant is in fact Ms. XXXX. The RPD was not persuaded by these arguments. As both Ms. XXXX and the Appellant would have been minors when they entered the UK, neither of them would have been fingerprinted. The RPD thought it apparent that the UK authorities had considered the evidence, and there was nothing to indicate that the proper procedures were not followed in assessing the Appellant's case. [18] In addition, the RPD tested the credibility of the Appellant's travel from Somalia to the UK. When questioned on this matter, the Appellant testified that she could not recall the name that was in the passport she used. She was not given any instructions in regard to the information in the passport. She could not even recall whether or not her mother's friend accompanied her to the UK. She did not remember if she had been questioned by any authorities in Europe prior to her entry to the UK. She claimed that she fell ill during her travels. The RPD rejected this explanation and found it reasonable to expect that she would recall this information, especially because it was supposedly her first trip outside of Somalia. The Appellant's arguments [19] The Appellant argues that it would have made little sense for her to assume a false identity in the UK, and that even the competent authorities there could make mistakes. She again emphasizes that the UK did not have biometric proof, that they did not interview Ms. XXXX father, or allow her to cross-examine him in order to prove that she is not his daughter. The Appellant points out that after her arrival in the UK, her English language abilities were limited, and she was residing in a youth facility run by social services. Ms. XXXX, on the other hand, had arrived in the UK as a child sponsored by her father. She argues that she would not have been able to hide her knowledge of the English language while living in the youth facility. If she were in fact Ms. XXXX XXXX she would have access to certain benefits and advantages that she would not have access to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She reiterates that even though she could have simply assumed Ms. XXXX identity and taken advantage of this, she did not do so because it would have been a crime to take a false identity. [20] The Appellant disputes the RPD's finding about the credibility of her alleged travel from Somalia to the UK. She says that she provided a reasonable explanation about having been ill and scared at the time she traveled, and that this affected her ability to recall the information. She highlights that her travel to the UK took place nearly a decade ago and that it was reasonable that she could not recall some of the details. [21] The Appellant also points out that the RPD agreed with the UK asylum decision's finding with respect to her identity. However, in that decision, the Appellant was found to be a woman by the name of XXXX XXXX. Despite this, the RPD went on to also rely on the Minister's evidence from HIRDA about the woman awaiting sponsorship from Somalia. The Appellant argues that if the RPD had accepted that she is XXXX XXXX, it was contradictory for the RPD to then rely on the evidence from the Minister that supports another identity. The RAD's independent assessment [22] I am unpersuaded by the Appellant's arguments. The Appellant points to the failure to identify a specific motivation for assuming another identity, the lack of biometric information, and the fact that Ms. XXXX father was not produced for cross-examination. However, none of the factors cited by the Appellant necessarily alleviate the concerns set out in the UK asylum decision. The fact that the evidence of the Appellant's identity as XXXX XXXX was not as strong as it could have been does not mean that the UK authorities reached the wrong decision. There was good reason to doubt the Appellant's identity. [23] It is rather incredible that on December 2, 2011, a young Somali woman by the name of XXXX XXXX, close in age to the Appellant and whom UK authorities consider closely resembled the Appellant, simply disappeared from the same flight from which the Appellant emerged. The Appellant has no explanation as to how this could have occurred. The UK asylum decision indicates that efforts were subsequently made to locate XXXX XXXX through social services, but that those efforts were unsuccessful. Ms. XXXX travel document was never reported lost or stolen. I do not find it inconceivable that the Appellant would conceal her English language abilities to immigration authorities and others, even while residing in a youth facility. I find this far more likely than the unexplained disappearance of a look-alike passenger from the same flight that the Appellant took to reach the UK. [24] In addition, the Appellant's statements about her travel from Somalia to XXXX XXXX lacked credibility. I do not share the RPD's concerns with regard to the Appellant's recollection of the name on the travel document or instructions given to her from her mother's friend. However, her statements on whether or not she was accompanied by her mother's friend have been inconsistent, and they continue to evolve. [25] According to the UK asylum decision, the Appellant declared that she had traveled to the UK with her mother's friend, but that when the plane arrived in the UK, she could no longer find the woman. She indicated that she therefore followed everyone off of the plane. This account was contradicted by CCTV evidence, showing that she disembarked from the flight with a Dutch national namedXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to whom she handed her travel document.8 Still another version of the events is contained in the Appellant's BOC narrative. There, the Appellant described that she and her mother's friend parted ways before the Appellant boarded the flight to the UK.9 [26] Having reviewed the audio recording from the September 27, 2018 hearing, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's testimony was not credible about her journey to the UK. She began by testifying in a manner that was consistent with her BOC narrative, saying that her mother's friend left her at the last airport, before she took her flight to the UK. She testified that her mother's friend told her to board the flight and to claim refugee status wherever it took her. This story soon fell apart. When the Minister's Counsel questioned the Appellant about the travel document she used to fly to the UK, the Appellant described that her mother's friend held on to the documents. When questioned as to how she showed her travel document when she boarded the UK-bound plane if it was in the possession of her mother's friend, the Appellant explained that it was after they had entered the plane that her mother's friend then left her. When it was pointed out to her that she had earlier testified that her mother's friend had left her before she even boarded the flight, the Appellant changed her testimony, saying that her mother's friend took the plane with her, but that she did not see her. She explained that she was throwing up on the plane and did not know where the woman went. The Appellant then stated that she could no longer recall what happened. She could only say that when she exited the plane in the UK, the woman was no longer with her. [27] It is telling that the Appellant now claims to have no recollection about whether she was accompanied by anyone on her flight to the UK from Rome. I agree with the RPD that it would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to recall this particular detail. The Appellant has given a number of different versions of what happened, and only now claims to have no recollection. In this context, the Appellant's testimony to the RPD that she can no longer recall whether she was accompanied by anyone at all on the UK flight, is simply unbelievable. [28] In addition, as to whether she was interviewed by anyone during her trip, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's inability to recall this information lacks credibility. During her first hearing, the RPD confronted the Appellant about the information in the UK asylum decision and how it describes that Ms. Ubah was questioned in-person by Italian police as well as by an immigration liaison officer from the UK over the phone. When presented with this information and asked whether the Appellant had been questioned by any authorities in Rome, the Appellant responded that she did not remember. Regardless of her feelings of being scared and feeling ill, I find it reasonable to expect the Appellant to recall whether she was extensively questioned by authorities in a foreign country, and placed on the phone with a UK liaison officer to convince them of her identity. It is not believable that she would be unable to recall if this happened, especially given that she has adamantly denied that she underwent any such questioning by the authorities in her representations to the UK Border Agency.10 [29] I also do not agree that the RPD's findings are in any way contradictory. While the RPD found that the UK asylum decision was persuasive, the RPD did not conclude that the Appellant is a woman named XXXX XXXX. Instead, the RPD had evidence of multiple identities and it could not conclude which of them was genuine, or indeed if any of them were genuine. The RPD found that the UK asylum decision and the Minister's evidence about the woman awaiting sponsorship through HIRDA, was evidence supporting competing identities. Ultimately, the RPD determined that the Appellant had not established her identity. There is nothing contradictory about the RPD's findings. [30] I agree with the RPD that the concerns in the UK asylum decision and the Appellant's inconsistent evidence about her journey from Somalia to the UK seriously undermine her allegations about her identity. ii. Inconsistency regarding father's identity [31] The Appellant also gave inconsistent information about the identity of her father. In her Schedule A form, the Appellant listed her father's name as XXXX XXXX.11 However, in other documents that she had in the UK, the Appellant listed her father as XXXX XXXX XXXX.12 When questioned about this inconsistency, the Appellant explained that when she was at the Canadian port of entry ("POE"), she believed she was asked to give her grandfather's name, rather than her father's full name. The RPD rejected this explanation, as the form clearly asks for her father's full name, and omits any mention of a grandfather. [32] The Appellant submits that the RPD should have accepted her explanation about her errors at the POE. She reiterates that she was tired, scared, and worried when intercepted by CBSA officers. She cites jurisprudence on how decision-makers must be cautious in relying on inconsistencies in POE statements. [33] There is no merit to this argument. I am unpersuaded that the Appellant believed she was being asked only for her grandfather's name. Her explanation is that she misunderstood the question in the Schedule A form as a result of a miscommunication at the POE. However, the inconsistency is reproduced in the Appellant's BOC form, which she completed later with the assistance of her lawyer, as well as an interpreter. In that form, the Appellant still lists her father as "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.13 Even if one can believe the Appellant's explanation for the discrepancy in the Schedule A form, the BOC form indicates that the entire contents of the form were interpreted to the Appellant. I therefore reject the Appellant's explanation. I too find that the discrepancies with respect to her father's identity undermine the Appellant's allegations about her own identity. iii. Inconsistencies in allegations relating to persecution in Somalia [34] The RPD also had reason to doubt the Appellant's credibility as a witness due to major inconsistencies in her allegations about the persecution she allegedly faced in Somalia. [35] The RPD noted that according to the UK asylum decision, the Appellant's father was killed in shelling between government forces and Al-Shabaab. By contrast, her BOC form states that Al-Shabaab came to her father's house, where they fired gunshots and burned down their home. The Appellant denied any inconsistency. The RPD disagreed, and noted an additional discrepancy. While her BOC narrative indicates that she was in hiding when this occurred, the UK asylum decision states that the Appellant was walking home from school when she encountered neighbours who told her what happened. On this basis, the RPD doubted the allegations about her father's death. [36] The Appellant describes these as "minor variations".14 She says that this was the result of an error, stemming from a miscommunication with the interpreter in the UK. She states that when she denied the inconsistency, she meant to convey that her father was killed in both accounts. [37] I am unpersuaded by the Appellant's argument. I reject her explanation that these inconsistencies arose from miscommunication with an interpreter. Contrary to the Appellant's submissions, this is no minor variation. In my review of the allegations, there are two very different stories. The UK asylum decision describes that the Appellant's father was killed when shelling destroyed their family home. It states that the Appellant was walking home from school when this occurred, and that she encountered neighbours who told her what had happened. The Appellant then followed this neighbour to escape further shelling.15 There is a major difference between this story and the Appellant's current version. The Appellant now claims that she was already in hiding at the time. Her narrative describes that neighbours told her mother that they saw Al-Shabaab come to their home, that they heard shooting, and that Al-Shabaab XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The BOC narrative describes that the Appellant's mother then came to fetch the Appellant from the house where she was hiding. In other words, there are differences in the manner in which the Appellant's father was killed, the Appellant's whereabouts when this occurred, and how the Appellant was taken to safety. I am not satisfied that these discrepancies occurred as a result of an innocent miscommunication in the UK between the Appellant and an interpreter. I agree that this contributes to the Appellant's lack of credibility as a witness. [38] As a result of the information in the UK asylum decision, the Appellant's inconsistent evidence about her journey to the UK, the discrepancy about her father's identity, and the differences in her claims of persecution in Somalia, I find that the Appellant is not a credible witness. I would not place weight on any of her unsupported statements. b) Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's supporting evidence [39] Apart from the Appellant's own testimony, she also called a witness in her hearing and provided documentary evidence from a number of sources in relation to her identity. I agree with the RPD that in the final weighing of the evidence, the Appellant's supporting evidence could not overcome the concerns about her multiple competing identities. Witness testimony [40] The RPD heard testimony from a witness, XXXX, who claimed to have met the Appellant in Mogadishu on a few occasions while staying at his aunt's home in 2010. The Appellant would have been fourteen years old at the time. XXXX indicated that when they met, he was twenty years old, on school vacation, visiting from Qoryoley. The RPD did not find him to be credible. It noted that, contrary to his affidavit, which indicates that he saw her on four occasions, he testified that he had met the Appellant on three occasions in Mogadishu.16 When confronted, XXXX blamed the problem on an error in the affidavit. In addition, the RPD found it unlikely that he would be able to recall the Appellant so clearly and provide a detailed description of her home despite having only gone there on a single occasion in 2010. [41] The Appellant says that the RPD was overly microscopic in its assessment of her witness' evidence, as human error could reasonably explain a discrepancy in the number of times the Appellant met the witness. The Appellant also argues that the RPD merely relied on its subjective view of the plausibility that the witness would not remember so much about his interactions with the Appellant in 2010. [42] I agree with the Appellant that no adverse inferences should be drawn from the level of detail provided by the witness in his testimony about the events he recalls from 2010. It is possible that he simply has a vivid recollection of his interactions with the Appellant. However, I concur with the RPD's finding about the inconsistency in the witness' testimony as compared to his affidavit. One might consider that it would be fairly easy to simply forget how many times they met. However, the witness did not blame the problem on a lapse in memory. To the contrary, he claimed to have an impeccable memory about his interactions with the Appellant in 2010. He stood by his testimony. Instead, he claimed to have made an error in the affidavit, and blamed his poor English. I too reject this explanation. In the hearing, the witness explained that it was not "two more times" that he saw the Appellant, but just once more after his lunch at the Appellant's home.17 It is unlikely that this was a typographical error, as the affidavit reproduces this error in the next sentence, stating that on "both occasions", they were visiting his aunt's home.18 The Appellant willingly signed the affidavit, swearing to its contents. I agree with the RPD that inconsistencies between his sworn testimony and his sworn affidavit are a valid basis for doubting the witness' evidence. I too place little weight on his evidence. DNA evidence and affidavit from the Appellant's mother [43] The Appellant also provided evidence from her mother about her identity and their relationship. This included an affidavit from the Appellant's mother, as well as a DNA test report that confirmed their mother-daughter relationship.19 [44] The RPD found that the DNA test report did not have significant probative value in establishing the Appellant's personal identity, as it could not confirm whether she was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It merely confirmed that the Appellant's biological mother was tested in Uganda and that the test confirmed their family relationship. The RPD had concerns about the mother's identity. The RPD noted that the Appellant's mother was supposedly an asylum-seeker in Uganda as XXXX XXXX2017, when the DNA test was conducted. However, the mother's affidavit, which was signed in April 2018, indicates that she is residing in Mogadishu. The RPD considered there to be major differences in the signatures between the mother's affidavit and the one contained in her Ugandan Asylum Seeker Certificate.20 The RPD could not ascertain how the mother's identity had been confirmed by the individual who witnessed or notarized her affidavit. [45] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in failing to give weight to the DNA test report and affidavit. With respect to the discrepancy around her whereabouts, the Appellant states that she gave testimony at her hearing, explaining that her mother had traveled to Uganda in order to give her DNA sample at the British embassy. As she had no status in Uganda, she filed a claim for asylum in order to enter the country. However, she later returned to Somalia because she was unable to support herself in Uganda and had no support system there. The Appellant says that the differences in the signatures are not clear, that this is subjective, and that people can change their signatures. [46] I am unpersuaded that the RPD erred in failing to give weight to the DNA test report and affidavit. The DNA report undoubtedly confirms the Appellant's relationship to the individual who gave the DNA sample in Uganda. However, there is nothing to indicate that the Appellant's mother went through any rigorous identity verification process when she gave her DNA sample or when she registered as an asylum-seeker. The client identification and consent form associated with the mother's DNA test indicates that her identification was based on an asylum seeker certificate, which was issued on the very same date that the DNA sample was collected.21 However, it is possible that the Appellant's mother merely assumed this identity when she traveled to Uganda in order to support the Appellant's asylum claim in the UK, which in fact was the sole purpose of her trip. With respect to the mother's affidavit, although I do not agree with the RPD's findings about the differences in the signatures or the discrepancies in her whereabouts, I concur that there is nothing to confirm how the witness or notary verified the mother's identity. The mother's affidavit states that she was born on January 1, 1952.22 However, the Appellant's BOC form and Schedule A form indicate that the Appellant's mother was born in 1969.23 I have little confidence that the witness was able to confirm that the affiant was in fact the same woman that the Appellant has alleged to be her mother in her refugee claim forms. For these reasons, I find that the DNA report and affidavit do not carry significant weight in establishing the Appellant's personal identity as a woman named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX1996. Dixon Community Services letter [47] Another document provided by the Appellant was a support letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, a settlement organization that works with the Somali community in Toronto. The letter indicates that the organization had contact with the Appellant and her cousin XXXX. The Appellant was interviewed. The author was satisfied of the Appellant's Somali nationality as a result of her ability to answer in Somali, her knowledge of her tribe, Somali culture, and her familiarity with the geography and landmarks in southern Somalia, including Mogadishu.24 [48] The RPD gave this letter little weight. It found that the various factors assessed by the author could not establish the Appellant's personal identity. The RPD considered that the knowledge displayed by the Appellant could have been obtained in other ways, without the Appellant necessarily being a resident or citizen of Somalia. It was possible for the Appellant to possess another identity and nationality while still displaying a certain amount of knowledge about Somalia. [49] The Appellant submits that the support letter indicates that her level of knowledge is consistent with that of a person who was recently in Somalia. She points out that the assessment was also based on an interview with her cousin, XXXX. The Appellant argues that by fixating on the possibility that the Appellant obtained information about Somalia in other ways, the RPD based its assessment on information that is not mentioned in the letter, rather than relying on the information provided by the author. [50] I disagree with the Appellant's arguments. The RPD was correct to consider that the letter had little probative value in establishing her personal identity. Certainly, factors such as the Appellant's Somali language abilities and her knowledge of the culture and her clan lineage speak to her ethnicity. I do not think the Appellant's Somali ethnicity can seriously be questioned. This much is clear. It is even possible that the Appellant resided in Somalia at some point in time. However, this is not the matter that is at issue. The problem in the Appellant's case is that her personal identity is in doubt. This includes facts about her full name, her date of birth, and her family information. The letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX has very little probative value in establishing these facts. They were unfamiliar with the Appellant until she approached them. While the Appellant also points to how her cousin XXXX is mentioned in the letter, the letter does not indicate that the Appellant's relationship to her cousin was tested in any way. In fact, it says nothing about any in-person interview with XXXX. It merely states that XXXX indicated to them that he is the Appellant's first cousin, and that he identified her as a citizen of Somalia. For these reasons, I do not assign any significant weight to the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX in establishing the Appellant's personal identity. Affidavit from Ahmed [51] The Appellant provided an affidavit from the same cousin referred to above, XXXX, who lives in Toronto. He claims that his mother and the Appellant's mother are half-siblings. It seems that although they did not meet each other prior to the Appellant's arrival in Canada, XXXX knew of the Appellant's existence through the Appellant's mother. He states that he and her mother have had communications in the past, and that upon the Appellant's arrival in Canada, another one of the Appellant's relatives informed him that she had come to Canada.25 [52] The affiant did not appear as a witness at the hearing. As the RPD could not question the affiant on his evidence, and as the Appellant had little knowledge about her maternal family members, the RPD found that the affidavit did not establish the Appellant's identity. [53] The Appellant challenges the treatment of this affidavit. She says that XXXX was too busy to testify at her hearing. She says that it is an error to discount the evidence merely because XXXX was unavailable for cross-examination. She relies on jurisprudence indicating that decision-makers should not impose evidentiary fetters from which Parliament has freed them. Regardless of the Appellant's lack of knowledge about the witness, the Appellant says that they were each still aware of their family relationship and that the affiant was at least still aware of her identity. [54] I disagree. While the affidavit should not automatically be disbelieved simply because its author is unavailable for cross-examination, the RPD had valid concerns about the affiant's ability to confirm the Appellant's personal identity. Though XXXX writes that he was born and raised in Somalia, he mentions nothing about having met the Appellant in Somalia at any point in time. He mentions nothing about where the Appellant resided prior to coming to Canada. He was vaguely aware of the Appellant's existence because of some communication he had with the Appellant's mother in the past. It may be that they are in some way related, but I am not satisfied that XXXX can fully and reliably confirm the Appellant's identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, nor can he confirm that the Appellant remains a Somali citizen and that she has not obtained status or nationality in some other country. The RAD's determination on the Appellant's identity [55] The Appellant argues that there is no requirement for corroboration in relation to her identity, and that her sworn testimony benefits from a presumption of truthfulness. However, I consider that the Appellant is required to establish her identity on a balance of probabilities, and the burden in this respect rests with her. She has not met that burden in this case due to the credibility issues that arose, and the evidence of competing identities. [56] Section 106 of the IRPA requires the RPD to take into account whether the refugee claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing their identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or whether they have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation.26 In addition, Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules requires claimants to provide acceptable documents establishing their identity. It states that claimants who do not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them.27 [57] I acknowledge that identity documents are often difficult to obtain in the Somali context. Although it seems that passports and national identity cards have been issued in recent years, few individuals had the means to obtain a passport, and many foreign governments did not recognize Somali passports as valid travel documents. The national identity card was used for very limited purposes, and was usually obtained simply as a precursor to obtaining a passport. In general, Somalis would not be expected to be in possession of such documents. According to some sources, there is no recognized competent civil authority to issue civil documents. Most records that existed prior to the civil war were destroyed. There is still no reliable governmental system for registering births, marriages, or deaths.28 However, this does not mean that the Appellant's requirement to establish her identity disappears. In these cases, it is often necessary to assess secondary sources of evidence, such as affidavits from family members and other identity witnesses. [58] However, for the reasons provided further above, the Appellant's evidence about her identity as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, was either lacking in credibility or was not reliable enough to establish her identity especially when compared to the evidence supporting a number of other competing identities. The Appellant provided inconsistent and evolving evidence about the circumstances of her arrival in the UK from Somalia. She was unable to explain how Ms. XXXX simply disappeared and how she emerged from the same flight in her place. She provided inconsistent information about the identity of her father, as well as the circumstances around his death. Her cousin, XXXX XXXX only had some vague awareness of her existence as a result of some conversations with the Appellant's mother. They did not know each other well. Her identity witness gave inconsistent evidence, and he too did not know her well, having met her only a few times during a visit to Mogadishu in 2010 when the Appellant was fourteen years old. The DNA evidence from the Appellant's mother did not establish the Appellant's personal identity, and there were discrepancies in the evidence about her identity. [59] On the other hand, there was evidence of a number of other identities that the Appellant had used prior to her arrival in Canada. As mentioned, UK authorities had good reason to believe that she is in fact another individual, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In addition to this, the Minister provided evidence from the website of XXXX, indicating that the Appellant was listed as an individual waiting for sponsorship. It would be an incredible coincidence if this were a different individual. The woman in the photograph closely resembles the Appellant. There are also similarities in the Appellant's name, her mother's name, and in the place of her birth. The XXXX website, however, indicates that the Appellant was born in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.29 This too undermined the Appellant's allegations about her identity. [60] Even if the RPD could have assigned some weight to the Appellant's evidence, the key question is whether the Appellant's supporting evidence about her identity as XXXX XXXX is persuasive in comparison to the evidence of other identities and the various credibility problems. The Appellant may be XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as she currently alleges in Canada. She may be XXXX XXXX XXXX, as described in the Minister's evidence from XXXX, who was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Finally, the Appellant could be the individual that UK authorities believe she is; that is, XXXX XXXX, a Somali national born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ultimately, with this amount of information supporting so many different identities or variations of identities, the Appellant's evidence was not sufficient to establish her identity as XXXX XXXX. CONCLUSION [61] On an independent assessment, I reach the same conclusion as the RPD. The Appellant has not established her identity on a balance of probabilities. This issue is determinative of the Appellant's claim. The Appellant cannot be recognized as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection without first establishing her identity. [62] I therefore confirm the RPD's negative determination. The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) M. Oh M. Oh July 29, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, at pp. 75-82. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 123. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, Basis of Claim Form, at p. 25. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 126. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 157; see also Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 (CanLII). 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 198. 7 Ibid., at pp. 224-226. 8 Ibid., at pp. 224-225. 9 Ibid., Exhibit 3, Basis of Claim narrative, at p. 18. 10 Ibid., Exhibit 5, at p. 193. 11 Ibid., Exhibit 1, Schedule A form, at p. 59. 12 Ibid., Exhibit 5, at p. 198. 13 Ibid., Exhibit 3, Basis of Claim Form, at p. 25. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of argument, at p. 22. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 223-224. 16 Ibid., Exhibit 8, at p. 259. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., Exhibit 5, at p. 141; see also Exhibit 9, at pp. 280-281. 20 Ibid., Exhibit 5, at p. 148. 21 Ibid., at p. 144. 22 Ibid., Exhibit 9, at p. 280. 23 Ibid., Exhibit 3, Basis of Claim form, at p. 25; see also Exhibit 1, Schedule A (IMM 5669) form, at p. 59. 24 Ibid., Exhibit 8, at p. 271. 25 Ibid., Exhibit 5, at p. 135. 26 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27), section 106. 27 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256), Rule 11. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, National Documentation Package for Somalia (April 30, 2018), item 1.7. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 119-123. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-30064 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français