Date: 19990216
Docket: IMM-624-98
BETWEEN:
MOHAMUD ALI SHIRE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED, J.:
[1] The applicant seeks an order setting aside a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Board found the applicant not to be a convention refugee because he had an internal flight alternative to the north eastern part of Somalia, an area controlled by the clan of which he is a member (Darod-Majertan).
[2] The applicant's claim for convention refugee status was based on experiences he had in the south of Somalia seven years ago when he was 12 years old. His father had protected a friend, an Hawiye, when members of the Darod-Majertan attacked the area in which they both lived (Kismayo). The applicant says that his father became known as a traitor to his clan and he took his family to Kenya as refugees (the Hawiye friend and his family went too). From there all of the applicant's family except the applicant moved to Tanzania. The Hawiye friend and the applicant remained in Kenya. I should also note that the applicant's mother was Hawiye. If the applicant is telling the truth, and the Board did not make any finding that he lacked credibility, he and his family suffered greatly as a result of the conflict between the Hawiye and Darod-Majertan. They suffered first at the hands of the Hawiye and then at the hands of the Darod-Majertan.
[3] The applicant's position is that the Board's decision, that he had a reasonable IFA in the north eastern part of Somalia, is perverse, capricious and was made without regard to the material before it because it was members of the Darod-Majertan clan who considered his father to be a clan traitor in Kismayo and it is among members of the same clan that he is now expected to live safely in the northeast. His evidence was that "they" would know who he was when he explained, his lineage and clan membership to "them", as he would have to, and "they" would know he was the son of someone who had been considered to be a clan traitor.
[4] The Board's analysis is not extensive. It states that "the claimant fears persecution at the hands of his father's clan, the Darod-Majertan, since his father was perceived as a traitor for protecting his Hawiye friend." The Board adds "This might be valid in Kismayo in 1991 when the claimant was 13 years of age. However, I do not find that such would be the case today, especially in another area of Somalia." The Board proceeds to describe the north eastern part of the country as being stable, under Darod-Majertan control, and as having a growing economy, despite some setbacks. It concludes that an IFA to the northeast is an attainable and accessible option for the applicant.
[5] The applicant's argument is that the analysis as to why it would be reasonable for him to go to the northeast is based on a cryptic reference to the passage of time (since 1991) and the fact that the northeast of the country is under the control of the clan of which he is a member. He asserts that this is perverse and that it ignores the evidence he gave that he would be persecuted in the northeast because he would be known there as the son of a clan traitor.
[6] The applicant was asked during the course of the hearing before the Board why he would not be able to live in the northeast, why people would be concerned about something his father did so many years ago, and who would now take action against him. He answered by saying "anybody who might have heard . . ."
| Anybody -- what could happen anybody who might have heard of the incident saying that this is the individual's son who protected and had to shield his body for the Hawiye man and anybody you go to in that area you'll have to identify yourself based on your sub-clan or your affiliation. |
|
| I wouldn't be able to live amongst them because I would not be able to change my name and they will have to ask me my name, my lineage, my tribal affiliation. Then what will be discovered in the process is who I am, what my old man did and the relationship that my father had with that [Hawiye] man. |
|
The quoted passages are illustrative of his answers.
[7] At the end of the hearing, the applicant's counsel made submissions to the panel that included the admonition that the panel must weight the documentary evidence and the claimant's own testimony of his fears of returning in order to determine whether the northeast is a viable IFA for this applicant:
| . . . so the panel must weigh the documentary evidence and the claimant's own testimony of his fears of returning to the northeast region based on his clan affiliation and based on the fact that he is a child of a mixed marriage and determine whether that is a reasonable internal flight alternative for this particular claimant. |
|
[8] Reading the Board's decision in the light of the evidence as a whole, I do not think that it can be said to have been capricious or perverse for the Board to have discounted the applicant's fears because of the passage of time and because it was to another geographical region of the country that the Board was considering he could move. I do not think the Board ignored his evidence. It went into some detail about the effect of having come from a "mixed marriage" and found that this was not a reason for a fear of persecution. It dealt with his concern that someone in the northeast might know of the 1991 incident in Kismayo and therefore promote persecution of the clan against him.
[9] The burden is on the applicant to show that the Board ignored his evidence. I have not been persuaded that it did. The Board was not willing to draw the same conclusions as the applicant did, as to what might happen should he go to the northeast of the country. The panel is not required to accept an applicant's suppositions in this regard, particularly when they are based on generalized statements with no concrete factual underpinnings.
[10] For the reasons given the application is dismissed.
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 16, 1999
Email this Content