U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office Services

MATTER OF N-J-H- DATE: NOV.21.2017

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

APPLICATION: FORM l-821. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS

The Applicant. who claims to be a national and citizen of . seeks revie·w of a decision withdrawing his Temporary Protected Status (TPS). See Immigration and Nationality Act section 244, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. TPS provides lawful status and protection from removal for foreign nationals, of specifically designated countries. who timely register (and then periodically re-register) during designated periods, satisfy residence and physical presence requirements. are admissible to the United States, were not finnly resettled in another country. and are not subject to certain criminal- and security-related bars.

The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the application for re-registration and withdrew the Applicant's TPS finding that the Applicant was ineligible for TPS because he did not establish identity and Sorriali nationality.

On appeal, the Applicant asserts that the Director's decision was in error and that the evidence he submitted proves his true identity and demonstrates he is a national of Somalia.

Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LAW

The Director may withdraw TPS if the applicant was not in fact eligible at the time TPS was granted or later becomes ineligible. 8 C.F.R. § 244.14(a)(l).

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 244.9(a), requires a TPS applicant to provide evidence of his or her identity, if available. Acceptable evidence of identity and nationality may consist of a a accompanied by photo identification. or any national identity document from the foreign national's country of origin bearing a photo. fingerprint, or both. !d. If these documents arc unavailable, an applicant must file an affidavit showing proof of unsuccessful efTorts to obtain such identity documents, explaining why the consular process is unavailable, and aftirming that he or she is a national of the designated foreign state. !d. A personal interview before an immigration ofticer shall be required for each applicant who does not provide documentary proof of identity or nationality. !d During this interview. the applicant may present any secondary evidence that he or she feels would be helpful in showing nationality. !d. .

Alaller ofN-.1-H-

The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter olChmvathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Applicants shall submit all documentation as required in the instructions or requested by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). 8 C.F.R. § 244.9(a). The sufficiency of all evidence will be judged according to its relevancy, consistency, credibility. and probative value. 8 C.F.R. ~ 244.9(b). To meet the burden of proof, the applicant must provide supporting documentary evidence of eligibility apart from his or her own statements. /d.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Applicant claims he was admitted to the United States in June 1999 at Texas. under an assumed name with a fraudulently obtained . In July 1999, the Applicant applied for asylum in the United States and submitted, in part, three affidavits from family friends to establish identity. The application was denied, in part, because the Applicant provided inconsistent testimony on points related to his claimed Somali clan membership, thus raising questions as to his identity and overall credibility. To establish identity in subsequent removal proceedings. the Applicant submitted copies of his bi11h certificate in English and Somali, purportedly issued in in 1987. and three identity affidavits. The Immigration Judge. however, found the Applicant's testimony, and the affidavits inconsistent, denied his request for political asylum and withholding of removal. and ordered the Applicant removed to Somalia. The Board of Immigration Appeals atlirmed the Immigration Judge's decision in 2003.

The Applicant subsequently applied for and was granted TPS as a national of Somalia in 2004. In 2015, the Director issued a notice of intent to deny the Applicant's re-registration application and to withdraw his TPS, advising the Applicant that the testimony he previously provided raised concerns about his identity and nationality, and the circumstances under which he obtained the Somali hirth certificate were not clear. The Director requested the Applicant to submit, in part. additional documents to establish identity, including a passport; a timely-registered birth certificate issued by the appropriate civil authority; and photo identification documents. such as a national identification card. The Applicant's response included his personal statement original Somali passport, secondary school leaving certificate, and an affidavit from a friend attesting to his identity. The Applicant \Vas also interviewed in person at the USCIS Field Office about the identity documents he provided. As stated above, the Director found the evidence of identity and nationality insufficient and \vithdrcw the Applicant's TPS.

III. ANALYSIS

The issue before us is whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the Applicant"s identity and Somali nationality, as required under designation of TPS for Somalia.

The Director determined that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proof because he provided inconsistent testimony in asylum and removal proceedings; he did not adequately explain how he obtained the Somali birth certificate af1er arriving in the United States: and he did not show that his

2 .

Matter of N-J-H-

Somali passport, issued in in 2008, years after the government of Somalia ceased to exist, was a valid document. The Director further found that because one of the affiants attesting to the Applicant's identity was younger than the Applicant, that individual could not have had personal knowledge about the Applicant's time and place of birth.

The Applicant states on appeal that his testimony in removal proceedings may have appeared inconsistent because of sub-par translation, and that the original documents he submitted, including his birth and school ce1iificates, constitute indisputable evidence of his identity and Somali nationality. The Applicant claims ftniher that, despite the Director's concerns regarding the validity of his Somali passport, it is very unlikely it was forged because the nevv Somali government opened a forgery-proof passport ot1ice in in 2002. Lastly, the Applicant argues that the Director improperly considered only one identity affidavit, and did not afTord any weight to the three affidavits he previously provided in suppmi of his asylum request.

We have reviewed the entire record and, for the reasons discussed below. tind that the documents the Applicant presented are insufficient to establish his true identity and Somali nationality in view of other evidence which indicates they may not be genuine.

A. Birth Certificate and Secondary School Leaving Certificate

The Applicant sates that the above original documents issued in 1987 and 1990. respectively. establish his true identity and Somali nationality. However. the Applicant's testimony and other evidence in the record raise doubts about their authenticity.

First, the Applicant's testimony about how he obtained the birth certificate is inconsistent. He states on appeal that he entered the United States with his original birth certificate. which he submitted to the Immigration Court for the 2001 removal hearing. He claims that because this original certificate was not returned to him, he subsequently had to request a second copy through a friend in Somalia. However, the record reflects that when the Applicant first applied for asylum in 1999. he indicated that he did not have any identity documents and instead submitted three affidavits attesting to his name, date, and place of birth. He confirmed this in a 2015 affidavit, stating that he did not obtain identity documents until three months after his asylum interview which, as the record reflects, took place in December 1999. Moreover, the Applicant testified at the 2015 interview that he first acquired the birth certificate "from back home" sometime in 2001. 1 However. at the removal hearing in 2001 he claimed that he had no contact with any of his family or clan members since his arrival in the United States in 1999. Accordingly, it is not clear when and hmv the Applicant obtained the birth certificate.

Moreover, it appears that the birth certificate, purportedly issued in in 1987, may not be a genuine document. The Applicant has submitted copies of the certificate in English and Somali. The certificate bears English language seals, stamps, and annotation. However. according to an

1 The record shows that the Applicant submitted the birth certificate to the immigration court in 200 I. Matter of N-.1-H-

Immigration and Naturalization Service Resource Information Center 2000 rcport,2 the shift to the Somali language in all official documentation in Somalia in the early to mid- 1970s would render English "quite unusual'' on a Somali birth certificate issued between 1973 and 1991. The same report states that in absence of an official government in Somalia, it was very easy to obtain documents in Somali marketplaces, but these documents were for purposes such as international travel and were worthless in Somalia. According to other sources.-' identity documents were not being issued anywhere in Somalia in 2001 and, although some local administrations were issuing birth certificates, , and similar documents. they were not issued under any recognized authority and were not verifiable. This information. when considered in the context of the Applicant's conflicting testimony about when and how he obtained the bitih certificate, raises concerns regarding the document's authenticity. We find therefore that under these circumstances the birth certificate is insutlicient to prove identity and nationality.

The Applicant has also submitted an original secondary school leaving certificate, dated in 1990. However, as the certificate does not have a photograph in the space provided therein. it does not qualify as an acceptable national identity document described in TPS regulations. Moreover. the Applicant does not explain how he was able to obtain the original 1990 document from Somalia following his arrival in the United States in 1999 when, according to some reports. 4 all archives and public offices were plundered and destroyed during the civil war leaving Somalia with no remaining registers, or copies of originals. Moreover, the beginning date of the Applicant's school attendance on the front and back of the certificate was manually changed from 1989 to 1987 and the inscription on the back states that any alteration renders the certificate invalid. For these reasons. we conclude that the certificate may not be an authentic, valid document and, therefore. has little probative in establishing the Applicants identity or nationality.

B. Passport

Although the regulations provide that a foreign passport is acceptable evidence of identity and nationality, the passport the Applicant submitted does not appear to be a genuine document issued by Somali authorities. Therefore, the Applicant's passport cannot be considered proof of his identity and Somali nationality.

As stated in the Director's decision, Somalia has not had a functioning central government since December 1990 and, although the United States formally recognized the new government in January 2013, there continues to be no recognized competent civil authority to issue civil documents. 5 The

2 Available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau]t/fi]es/eoir/legacy/20 13/06/ 13/SOM00003.pdf. 3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Research Directorate. Response to Intcmnation Request: SOM42806.E. Somalia: Identity Documents and Travel Documents (./anuarv 1000-.lune 201M) (July 29. 2004 ). available at https:/ /www.jus tice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/20 13/12/13/SOM42806.E.pdf. 4 See. e.g .. The Country of Origin Information Centre (Land info). Documents in Somalia and S'udan (Jan. 5. 2009). available at https://landinfo.no/asset/769/ I /769 _!.pdf. 5 See U.S. Department of State, Somalia Reciprocity Schedull!. https:l/travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/feesireciprocity­ by-country/SO.html.

4 .

Matter ofN-J-H-

Applicant submitted a Somali "green'' passport, purportedly issued in in 2008. The Director found that the uneven perforation of the passport's serial number indicated it was not a genuine document. The Applicant argues on appeal that this is unlikely, as the passport was issued after a new office in started issuing forgery-proof passports in 2002. We do not find this argument persuasive. According to a 2002 United Nations Integrated Regional Inf()fmation Networks (IRJN) report, in an effort to counter a "widespread forgery of Somali passports:· in 2002 a new passport office was established in within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. which was to issue passports with a new dry seal to prevent forgery and duplication.() The old passports with the new seal were to remain in circulation until new Jorgery-proof passports could be printed. The same report indicated that, generally, individuals wishing to acquire a Somali passport would do so unoflicially by going to the markee and paying a fee. Similarly. according to a 2004 response from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Somali documents. including passports, should not be accepted as proof of identity as they could easily be obtained both in Somalia and in many other countries in the region through unofficial channels. and they were often openly on sale in markets.8

According to the Applicant's sworn testimony at the 2015 interview. he obtained the passport hy sending his photographs and birth certificate to a friend in Somalia. The friend got the passport in based on this information and mailed it to the Applicant in the United States. We agree with the Director that there are many indicators that the passport is not genuine. Although its biographical page bears the Applicant's photograph and signature underneath a laminate, the Applicant does not explain how he was able to sign the passport, purportedly issued in Somalia, before the page was laminated. Furthermore, neither the emblem in the center of the ink seal. nor some of its lettering is legible. In addition, the passport pages do not contain a watermark.9 the background print lacks detail, and there is a spelling error on page 4: '·Only names of children upgto 14 years of age can be entered" (emphasis added). Lastly, as the Director observed. the needle print serial numbers on the passport are uneven and the pert()rated holes are not of equal size. Accordingly, because the Applicant has not shown that he obtained the passport through official channels and there are indicators that the document is not genuine, we cannot give it significant weight in establishing the Applicant's identity and nationality.

C. Identity Affidavits

As stated above, if birth certificates, passports, or photo identification documents are unavailable. the regulations require an applicant to tile an affidavit showing proof of unsuccessful efforts to obtain such identity documents, explaining why the consular process is unavailable, and affirming

6 See IRIN, Passport qffice opened, (Sept. 4. 2002), http://www.irinnews.org/repOJ1134120isomalia-passport-ofticc­ opened. 7 An open market in the largest in Somalia. 8 See Somalia: Identity Documents and Travel Documents (.fanum:r 2000-.June 200'-1) (July 29, 2004), supra. 9 According to USCJS sources, Somali ·'green" passports pages should contain watermarks vi sible under transmitted light source. .

Matter C!f N-J-H- that he or she is a national of the designated foreign state. While the Applicant has not shown that he attempted to obtain appropriate identity documents through the Somali government representatives in the United States or in Somalia, he has submitted a personal declaration and four affidavits attesting to his name, place and date of birth, and his parents' names. We find, however, that the affidavits do not overcome the lack of primary evidence of the Applicant's identity and nationality.

The 2000 affidavit from the merits little weight because it does not explain the basis for the certification of the Applicant's biographic information. Moreover, the Applicant's conflicting testimony diminishes the probative value of the 1999 affidavits from individuals claiming to be his family friends. One of the afliants, attests to the Applicant's identity stating that he and the Applicant's older brother were classmates in a high school in and that from 1980 until 1989 he visited his sister who lived with her spouse in the same town as the Applicant's family. However, the Applicant testified in removal proceedings that he was the oldest of the eight children in his family. and that the atlianfs brothers were his neighbors. These inconsistencies undermine the atlidavit's evidentiary weight as they indicate that the Applicant and the affiant may not know each other or their families well.

The Applicant has also submitted an affidavit from who states that although he met the Applicant in the United States, he knew him in Somalia because the Applicant and his uncle were neighbors. However, the Applicant only generally stated in removal proceedings that he and the affiant lived in the same town in Somalia, and that they met again in the United States in front of a restaurant. Based on this information alone we arc unable to determine the nature of their relationship or the extent and basis for the affiant's knowledge about the Applicant identity. Accordingly, we do not consider the atlidavit and the Applicant's testimony to be of great probative value.

Similarly, we cannot give significant weight to the affidavit of as it is inconsistent with the Applicant's testimony. Specifically, states that he knows the Applicant because he and the Applicant's father grew up together. However, when asked about during his 200 I immigration hearing, the Applicant described him as a young man and friend with whom he attended school in Somalia. Again, the Applicant's testimony casts doubt on the nature of his relationship with the affiant and, thus, the veracity of the affiant's statements.

The Applicant claims that his testimony in removal proceedings v.ras not properly translated. However, it is the Applicant's burden to resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Malter o( Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). As the Applicant has not submitted such evidence, or explained the discrepancies, we lind that the lack of detail in the affidavits and the conflicting testimony signi1icantly diminishes their evidentiary value.

The Applicant has also provided an "atlidavit of birth'' executed in 2015. In this aftidavit, the Applicant's friend attests to the Applicant's name, date, place of birth. and mother's name stating Matter of N-J-H- that he knows this information because he and the Applicant lived together in the United States. 10 The Director concluded that the affidavit has little probative value, as the atliant is nine years younger than the Applicant. We agree that the atlidavit merits little weight not only because of the age difference, but also because the affiant's statements appear to be based solely on the fact that he and the Applicant lived together in the United States.

Lastly, the Applicant states that his knowledge of Somali language is in itself indicative of his Somali nationality. We find, however, that the language ability alone is insufficient in this case to overcome the Applicant's inconsistent testimony, submission of a false passport, and lack of credible evidence of identity and nationality.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Applicant has not established that he is eligible for TPS as a national of Somalia because he has not submitted sutTicient evidence of identity and Somali nationality.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter q(N-J-H-, ID# 680905 (AAO Nov. 21, 2017)

10 The second part of the affiant"s statement regarding the basis of his knowledge of the facts described in the atridavit is illegible.