Docket: IMM-4314-16
Citation:
2017 FC 360
Ottawa, Ontario, April 12, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HASHIM FARAH
ADAM
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of a
decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated September 22, 2016 [the
Decision]. It confirmed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] which
said that the applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of
protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. This application is brought pursuant
to subsection 72(1) of the IRPA.
I.
Background
[2]
The applicant is a citizen of Somalia. He
alleges that between 2003 and 2007 he owned a computer shop with his brother in
his home town of Bulo Burte. The customers of the business included members of
the public as well as the regional government.
[3]
The applicant said that he was assaulted and
threatened by Al Shabaab in 2007. It demanded that he stop working for the
government.
[4]
The applicant’s computer shop was attacked by Al
Shabaab in October of 2007. The applicant alleges that he was shot and thereafter
fled to Mogadishu. In November of 2007, he left Somalia and went to South
Africa, where he applied for and was denied asylum. However, he was given work
permits which allowed him to remain in that country.
[5]
The applicant left South Africa in 2015 and
travelled to the Brownsville, Texas border crossing. There he applied for
asylum. He was interviewed by US authorities at the Port of Entry [POE] and a
Credible Fear Interview was held [the CF Interview]. His claim was ultimately rejected
and he then travelled to Canada where he made a refugee claim in March of 2016.
II.
The RPD Decision
[6]
The RPD concluded that the applicant had not
owned a computer shop, had not worked for the government and had not been shot
by Al Shabaab. The RPD found that the applicant was not credible for three
reasons. First, and most importantly, he had no documentation and no witnesses
to show that he had ever owned and operated a computer business. The RPD
rejected the applicant’s explanation that he had no records because his business
was conducted on a cash basis. The RPD relied on the National Documentation
Package [NDP] for Somalia, which shows that mobile money transfer technology was
commonly used. Second, there was a substantial inconsistency between his Basis
of Claim [BOC] Form in which he said that he was treated in hospital after the
shooting in 2007 and the notes of his CF Interview in which he said he did not
go to the hospital. Third, the RPD did not find it plausible that Al Shabaab
would threaten his mother with death and then not harm her when she refused to
reveal his whereabouts.
[7]
In his BOC Form and at the RPD hearing, the
applicant stated that he feared Al Shabaab in part because he is Sufi and is
therefore considered an infidel. However, he also testified that he had not
experienced any past problems with Al Shabaab due to his religion. The RPD did
not question or consider whether or not he is Sufi and did not address the
possibility of future persecution on that ground. The RPD simply noted that
there was no evidence that he had been targeted by Al Shabaab because of his
religion. In my view, this treatment of the issue shows that the RPD accepted
the applicant’s identity as Sufi.
III.
The RAD Decision
[8]
The RAD concluded that it was reasonable to
expect that the applicant would be able to provide documents to corroborate the
ownership and operation of his computer business. The RAD acknowledged that the
RPD’s reliance on mobile money transfer technology was misplaced in that there
was no evidence that it was available when the applicant was in business. Nevertheless,
the RAD did not accept that the applicant dealt only in cash and concluded that
he would have used the Hawala Remittance System, particularly when dealing with
the government. The RAD relied on documentary evidence to show that recipients
of payments in the Hawala system would have had some form of identity
documentation. However, I accept the applicant’s submission that the RAD
misunderstood Response to Information Request SOM10593.E and source document
U4. Both state that once an identity code for the transaction is used and a payment
is received, there is no ongoing record keeping. However, this error is not
material because the problem was not that the applicant had no record of the payments
his business received, the problem was that he had no evidence of any kind to
show that his business existed.
[9]
The RAD also identified inconsistencies in the
evidence which had not been noted by the RPD and concluded that they further
undermined the applicant’s credibility. One of the inconsistencies related to the
applicant’s evidence about whether he is Sufi. At the POE he was asked “What is your religion? If Muslim, what area of Islam?”
He answered, “Muslim, Sunni”. In his CF
Interview he was asked “What is your religion, if any”
He replied “Muslim”. However, in his BOC Form and
oral evidence before the RPD he said that he is “Muslim,
Sunni, Sufi”. The RAD found these responses to be inconsistent and said
that his failure to mention his Sufism in the US undermined his credibility.
[10]
The RAD agreed with the RPD that the evidence
that the applicant’s mother had been threatened by Al Shabaab and unharmed was
not credible.
[11]
The applicant said that the RPD erred when it
failed to assess his risk of future persecution as a Sufi. In dealing with this
issue, the RAD concluded that the applicant was not Sufi because he produced no
corroborating documents and because he had not described himself as Sufi in his
interviews with US authorities.
IV.
The Issues
[12]
The determinative issue is whether the RAD was
required to give the applicant an opportunity to make submissions before it
concluded that he is not Sufi.
V.
Discussion and Conclusions
[13]
In my view, there was no reason why the
applicant would expect the RAD to question his identity as Sufi. His ground of
appeal was predicated on his profile as a Sufi and his complaint was that the
RPD had failed to assess his future risk of persecution as a Sufi at the hands
of Al Shabaab.
[14]
Since his identity as a Sufi was a new issue
before the RAD, I have concluded that the RAD was required to give him notice
that it had concerns about his Sufism.
VI.
Certified Question for Appeal
[15]
The applicant suggested a question in his memorandum
of argument but it was withdrawn during the hearing. The Respondent did not
pose a question.
Email this Content