 
RPD.29.1 (August 31, 2012)  
 
 RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 Private Proceeding / Huis clos  
Reasons  and  Decision  Motifs et Décision  
Claimant(s)  XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX 
XXXXXXXX XXXX  Demandeur(e)(s) d’asile  
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  August 11, 2017  Date(s) de l’audience  
   
   
Place of Hearing  Toronto, O ntario  Lieu de l’audience  
   
   
Date of Decision  September 14 , 2017  Date de la décision  
and reasons   et des motifs  
   
Panel  XXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
   
Counsel for the Claimant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXX  
Barrister and Solicitor  Conseil(s) du (de la/des) 
demandeur(e)(s) d’asile  
   
   
Designated Representative(s)  XXXX XXXX XXXX  Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
Counsel for the Minister  N/A  Conseil du (de la) ministre  
   
   
 
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 REASONS FOR DECISION  
[1] This is the decision in the claims for refugee protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX , 
XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX   They claim to be citizen s of Iraq.  
ALLEGATIONS  
[2] The claimants state they are at risk in Iraq due to their religion, as Christians.  They state 
that they left Iraq in 2007 as a result of threats against them and the killing  of the principal 
claimant’s spouse (father to the other claimants), first to Turkey and then to Canada, where they 
entered claims in 2012.   
DECISION  
[3] For the following reasons, the panel finds the claimants have not established their personal 
identities a nd nationalities.   
ANALYSIS  
[4] Section 106 of IRPA states : 
 “The Refugee Protection Division must take into account, with respect to the 
credibility of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation 
establishing identity, and if not, whe ther they have provided a reasonable 
explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain 
the documentation. ”1 
[5] I find that the claimants ’ identities are  not established as there was no persuasive eviden ce 
establishing their  identity.   
                                                 
 
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , section 106 . 
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 Documents provided are not reliable.  
[6] The claimants provided the following documents to establish their identity: national 
identification cards, birth/baptism confirmations issued by their church in Iraq, and identity 
documents of the principal XXXXXXXXXXX mother, who was accepted as a refugee in Canada in 2010.   
Identity Cards  
[7] The claimant was asked about the identification cards provided2.  Initially, she stated that 
she had brought them with her when she left Iraq in 2007.  She later stated that the cards were 
sent to her after she left Iraq.  When asked about this she suggested she made a mistake.  
[8] The panel then asked about how the identity documents were provided to her.  She stated 
that the person she was renting from in Turkey went back and fo rth to Baghdad and brought them.  
The panel found the explanation for how the cards were obtained confusing.  She indicated that he 
got them from his mother’s aunt in XXXX , who got them from friends, who got them from her 
mother and father in law.  She the n stated that her in -laws brought it to her mother’s aunt in 
XXXX  and then friends brought them from XXXX  to Baghdad, where the landlord retrieved 
them.  The panel found the claimant’s explanation of how the identity cards travelled through Iraq 
to be conf using and internally inconsistent.   
[9] The claimant was then asked where the ID cards were when they left for Turkey, and she 
stated they were in the north ( XXXX ) with her mother and father -in-law.  She said next they were 
taken to the mother’s aunt, from wh om the landlord retrieved them.  She stated that the mother’s 
Aunt is in XXXX XXXX , and that the landlord retrieved from her the same cards the claimants 
left behind when they went to Turkey. The panel noted that the document was issued in 2008, and 
so the  claimant’s statement that she left the cards behind in Iraq in 2007 could not have been 
truthful.  She then amended her testimony to state that there were old cards left behind that 
needed to be renewed.  As her husband was from Basra, her father -in-law t ook care of getting 
them renewed.  The renewal was delayed due to the security situation in the country.   
                                                 
 
2 Exhibit 6 . 
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 [10]  When asked about why she had stated on multiple occasions that she had these ID 
documents when she left Iraq and had left them behind, she stated tha t it was an oversight or 
mistake.  The panel rejects her explanation.  The claimant gave detailed (albeit confusing) 
testimony about the path these cards took after she left Iraq, never once mentioning them being in 
Basra waiting to be renewed.  It was not  until she was faced with the fact that what she stated 
could not be true on the face of the documents that the testimony was amended.  The panel finds 
it more likely that the claimant could not tell the panel how the documents were obtained because 
they w ere not obtained in a regular or legal fashion and are unreliable.   
[11]  The claimant was asked about how her father -in-law obtained the ID cards on her behalf in 
Basra.  She stated they applied to renew them before she left the country, at the beginning of 
2007.  The cards were not issued until November, 2008.  This delay was because it was unsafe to 
travel to Basra in this time.  The panel notes that 2006 -2008 was a particularly violent time in Iraq 
and travel was likely unsafe in this period.  However, this is insufficient to overcome the 
significant fact that the claimant failed to mention this at any time when being asked in detail 
about these documents, until faced with the inconsistency between  her testimony and  the details 
on the document itself.   
[12]  The panel notes that the documentary evidence establishes that these identity cards are 
known to be available  in both false and fraudulently  obtained format3, and can be issued by 
proxy4, such that persons do not even have to be in Iraq or only holding Iraqi c itizenship in order 
for them to be issued .    
[13]  As the claimant could not provide  clear and consistent testimony about the primary 
identity document she has provided for herself and her children, and the documents are 
themselves subject to concerns related t o their reliability, the panel finds they are not reliable, and 
cannot be given sufficient weight such that the y establish the claimants’  identities.  
                                                 
 
3 Exhibit 7, items 3.3 and 3.7 . 
4 Ibid.  
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 Birth/Baptism certificates  
[14]  The claimant provided birth/baptism certificates for herself and the other two claimants5.  
These documents have no security features, are not issued by a state authority, and do not include 
photos.  As such the panel finds that, even if there were no concerns with the documents, they 
could be given only very limited weight towards e stablishing identity.  However, the panel does 
have concerns with the validity of these documents.  
[15]  The panel asked the claimant about her sons’ certificates.  She stated they were provided 
to her maybe a month after their respective baptisms in 2002 and 20 04.  The panel noted to the 
claimant that the documents had issuance dates of 2005 and 2006 respectively, two years after she 
states they were provided to her.  She explained that she forgot because it was years ago, and 
stated that she has memory problems .  The panel finds that the claimant’s testimony regarding 
how these documents were obtained is not reliable, as her statements do not match the 
information on the certificate itself.  The allegation that this inconsistency is due  to m emory -loss 
is not sup ported by documentation such as a medical report . 
[16]  The panel further noted that the register number on both of the children’s certificates is not 
entered.  The claimant could not explain why this would be.   
[17]  The panel also noted that, despite being issued a  year apart, the signature block on both of 
the children’s documents is identical – when held over each other, the signatures are identical in 
form, placement, and size.  The claimant suggested that they may use the same forms with the 
signature block pre -populated.  The panel does not have evidence to suggest that this would be 
done.  The panel finds it more likely, given the other concerns noted, that the signature blocks are 
identical because the forms are not genuine, but were rather produced for the pu rposes of the 
claim.  
[18]  The panel notes the claimant also provided a baptism certificate for her, which does not 
have the same signature and does contain a register number.  However, this form suffers from the 
same inherent lack of reliability noted, and, as the claimant provided the exact same document for 
the two minor claimants that, in the panel’s view, is likely fraudulent, if follows that the panel 
                                                 
 
5 Exhibit 6 . 
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 cannot rely on the mirror document for the principal claimant.  Finally, this states it was issued in 
1999,  and as such does not provide evidence or proof to establish the whereabouts, identity, or 
citizenship of the principal claimant in the intervening years.   
Mother’s documents  
[19]  The panel considered the identity documents of the principal claimant’s mother.  
According to the documents before the panel, these consist of the same two documents provided 
for these claimants – an identity card and birth/baptism certificate6.  First, these do not establish 
the identity of the claimants themselves.  The claimants ha ve not provided reliable evidence to 
establish their familial relationship to this person.  Secondly, these documents are the same type 
as and not inherently more reliable than that which the claimants are attempting to use to establish 
their identities – the panel does not have before it details about how these documents were 
assessed such that they were found to be reliable by the last panel, for instance.   
[20]  And, while these documents were accepted by a previous panel, that panel did not have the 
same evi dence which is before this one (that includes problematic testimony and inconsistencies 
on the face of the documents).  As such, the panel comes to a different conclusion – that the 
combination of these two documents, in the case of the claimant’s before i t, is insufficient to 
establish identity.   
Lack of additional documents or evidence  
[21]  The claimants stated they lived in Turkey from 2007 -2012.  They have provided no 
evidence to establish this.  The claimants had apparently fled Iraq to Turkey, but did not  register 
with the United Nations  (UN)  as refugees.  The panel asked why they had not done this, given 
their situation, and the principal claimant stated she was afraid to do so because she had travelled 
to the country illegally.  She could not, however, e xplain why that would cause her to fear 
approaching and registering with the UN authorities in the country.  The panel sees no evidence 
that registering with the U.N. in Turkey leads to expulsion from the country, and rather would 
expect that it would assi st with staying in the country as a U.N. recognized refugee awaiting 
resettlement.  
                                                 
 
6 Exhibit 6 .1 
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 [22]  The claimant provided no documentation related to her stay in Turkey.  No school, 
medical, work, or other records, stating that she and her children did not participate in s chooling 
or work, and she did not have medical records available.  She did not have any photos or other 
evidence of living there.  She did not provide evidence from her long -time landlord in the 
country.  She did not provide evidence from two Canadians who  she states saw her in Turkey in 
2012.  She did not provide evidence from any church or other organization she may have 
attended.  The complete paucity of any evidence of having resided in Turkey leads the panel to 
find the claimant is likely being less th an forthcoming about her whereabouts, as the panel would 
expect someone living in a country with two children for many years would have some record of 
this available.  The panel notes the claimant was specifically asked to provide such evidence.  It 
reject s her explanation that there is no evidence available that could establish the whereabouts of 
herself and the minor claimants for such a long period of time, as this belies belief on its face and 
is not supported by the evidence that she had a landlord, ha d persons who saw her there, and 
raised and cared for two small children.   
[23]  The panel does note that the claimant did approach Turkish authorities in Canada in an 
attempt to furnish them with her fingerprints to see if there was a record for her there, but  they 
were unable to proceed with such a request.  The panel finds this does not rectify the lack of 
evidence about the claimant’s whereabouts – according to the claimant, they were never legally 
granted entry to the country.   
[24]  The panel also notes that th e principal claimant’s mother stated that the claimants were in 
Turkey in her PIF in 2008.  The panel notes that this is consistent with the claimant’s evidence.  
However, the panel finds this one consistency is insufficient to offset the entire lack of an y 
evidence of residence for the approximately five years prior to arrival in Canada.   The panel 
notes that according to the claimant, her and her mother had no contact between 2008 and 2012 
(despite the claimant having lived in the same location in Turkey  throughout this time, a place the 
claimant’s mother lived as well prior to coming to Canada and that was owned by a person in 
contact with family members still in Iraq, as he was allegedly involved in obtaining the claimant’s 
identity documents from them) .  As such, the claimant’s mother cannot provide details or 
evidence as to their whereabouts during these years.   
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 Unable to provide details of travel to Canada  
[25]  When the principal claimant was asked about how she was able to travel to Canada with 
two child ren, she stated that the smuggler was with her and did everything.  She was unable to 
state what travel documents were used, what was said to authorities, or which countries she 
transited.  The claimant then stated when she arrived in the U.S.A., she belie ved for some time 
she was in Canada, including throughout the customs and immigration process, again managed 
entirely by the smuggler.  She has no record of her travel.  The claimant was asked if she did not 
notice any sign that she was in the U.S.A., such  as U.S.A. flags hanging in the airport or 
elsewhere or on uniforms, and stated she was too afraid and not paying attention.  The panel finds 
it unlikely the claimant could have flown on a plane for many hours, and then passed through 
international customs  and through a U.S.A. airport without noticing anything that would indicate 
she was in that country.  The claimant states she lived in Iraq until 2007, through years of the 
U.S.A. led war in the country, and so would likely be familiar with t he flag and ot her symbols of 
that  country.  The panel believes the claimant is deliberately obfuscating the route by which she 
went to the U.S.A. in order to hide her and her children’s true identities.  The panel notes that a 
request through the U.S.A. to determine if a match of her fingerprints existed in their records was 
non -resultant7, and so unable to confirm her statements regarding how she entered that country.  
CONCLUSION  
[26]  The claimants have failed to provide credible and reliable personal identity documents, 
have  failed to provide other documentation that the panel finds could reasonably have been 
available and that could help establish their identity and residence history, and have failed to 
provide credible evidence to establish how they travelled to Canada.  As  such, the panel finds the 
claimants have not established their personal or national identities.  
[27]  In order to find someone to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection, it 
must be determined what their country or countries of nationality are so that the claim can be 
assessed against those countries.  Having failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the 
claimant s are  Iraqi , I find they are not Convention refugee s or person s in need of protection as 
                                                 
 
7 Exhibit  9. 
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  : TB2 -08850  
TB2 -08869  
TB2 -08870  
 they have  not established a country o r countries of nationality on which to determine if they  face 
more than a mere possibility of persecution or a likely danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of 
cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.  
[28]  The claims are rejected.  
 
(signed)  “XXXXXXX”  
 XXXXXXX  
 September 14, 2017  
 Date  
 
2017 CanLII 148726 (CA IRB)

