TB8-27229

RPD File / Dossier de la SPR : TB8-27229 TB8-27356 UCI / IUC: XXXX XXXXXXXX Huis clos / Private Proceeding Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of hearing February 28, 2020 Date(s) de l'audience Place of hearing Toronto, Ontario Lieu de l'audience Date of decision and reasons September 25, 2020 Date de la décision et des motifs Panel Kenneth D. MacLean Tribunal Counsel for the claimant(s) Marcela D Gonzalez-Rodriguez Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) demandeur€(s) d'asile Designated representative N/A ReprésentantI désignéI Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Claimant) and XXXX XXXX XXXX seek refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 [2] The claims are joined pursuant to RPD Rule 55. ALLEGATIONS [3] The claimants' allegations are set out most fully in their respective Basis of Claims Forms (BOC)2. They rely on a joint narrative. [4] The Principal Claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (hereafter the PC), alleges that because of a disability he has faced persistent discrimination in Mexico that, when taken in its entirety, rises to the level of persecution. [5] The claimants allege that they are in a common-law relationship and that the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX has faced discrimination because of her relationship with the PC, and because of the generalized mistreatment of women in Mexico. DETERMINATION [6] I find that the claimants are neither Convention refugee nor persons in need to protection. ANALYSIS Identity [7] Based on their testimony and certified true copies of their Mexican passports3, I am satisfied that the claimants are who they claim to be and that they are citizens of Mexico and no other country. CREDIBILITY Discrimination Amounting to Persecution [8] The Convention does not define persecution. However, persecution can mean sustained or systematic violation of basic human rights demonstrating a failure of state protection.4 Case law has stated that to be considered persecution, the mistreatment suffered or anticipated must be serious5 and occur with repetition. In other words, the legal question to be determined is: does the persecution alleged by the claimant threaten his or her basic human rights in a fundamental way?6 [9] The Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Sagharichi stated: It is true that the dividing line between persecution and discrimination or harassment is difficult to establish, the more so since, in refugee law context, it has been found that discrimination may very well be seen as amounting to persecution. It is true also that the identification of persecution behind incidents of discrimination or harassment is not purely a question of fact but a mixed question of law and fact, legal concepts being involved.7 [10] The question, therefore, is does the discrimination the claimant faced amount to persecution. [11] According to the UNHCR Handbook, claimants: 53. ...may have been subjected to various measures not in themselves amounting to persecution (e.g. discrimination in different forms), in some cases combined with other adverse factors (e.g. general atmosphere of insecurity in the country of origin). In such situations, the various elements involved may, if taken together, produce an effect on the mind of the applicant that can reasonably justify a claim to well-founded fear of persecution on "cumulative grounds." 54. Persons who receive less favourable treatment as a result of such differences are not necessarily victims of persecution. It is only in certain circumstances that discrimination will amount to persecution. This would be so if measures of discrimination lead to consequences of a substantially prejudicial nature for the person concerned, e.g. serious restrictions on his right to earn his livelihood, his right to practise his religion, or his access to normally available educational facilities. 55. Where measures of discrimination are, in themselves, not of a serious character, they may nevertheless give rise to a reasonable fear of persecution if they produce, in the mind of the person concerned, a feeling of apprehension and insecurity as regards his future existence. Whether or not such measures of discrimination in themselves amount to persecution must be determined in the light of all the circumstances. A claim to fear of persecution will of course be stronger where a person has been the victim of a number of discriminatory measures of this type and where there is thus a cumulative element involved.8 [emphasises added by panel] [12] The issue before me is to determine whether the discrimination the PC claims to have suffered in Mexico when taken cumulatively rises to the level of persecution. I examined the claimant with respects to several aspects of his claim using a framework for analysis that considers his particular circumstances, with respect to evidence of discrimination in healthcare, education, employment, housing, access to social benefits, access to civil society, interactions with state agents, interactions with non-state agents, and discrete incidents of discrimination at the hands of non-state actors. Healthcare [13] There is no question that the PC has a disability. He was born in XXXX XXXX, without a XXXX XXXX. When I asked the PC the nature of his disability he testified a modest physical disability of his XXXX XXXX, he was born without a XXXX. In his narrative the claimant states that he was born with a mobility impairment and that for the first eleven years of his life he was in and out of hospital without his parents receiving an answer. The PC alleges that the doctors in Mexico would not offer a diagnosis of his condition and would only give him appointments and conduct medical evaluations. He alleges that his parents feared that he has a serious illness and continued to look for help that was not forthcoming. [14] The claims made in the PC's narrative suggest problems far beyond the absence of a XXXX XXXX due to a XXXX XXXX. The claimant has disclosed no medical documents from Mexico confirming the nature of his disability beyond his testimony that he was born XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I asked the PC where his documents were, and he answered that they were with his mother in Puebla. [15] Without more information as to the extent of any other disability, it is difficult to reach a conclusion that the PC was denied access to healthcare because of his disability. If I take him at his word, then the evidence supports a conclusion that his disability notwithstanding, as a child he was able to access the Mexican healthcare system at least until the age of eleven. Education [16] It is often the case that persons who face persistent discrimination on the basis of an attribute specific to them are unable to access education and are thus denied the opportunity to gain the knowledge necessary for them to live and participate within their society and community. The denial of opportunity can be caused by virtue of systemic barriers erected by the state or educational institutions or as the result of active or passive actions by individuals who discriminate against the person thus preventing them from effectively participating in education. [17] Such discrimination can take the form of active segregation by teachers and school administrators, policies at the state level that deem certain individuals unworthy of education beyond the basics, or by virtue of the actions of non-state actors, school peers, the local community, society in general, which combine to deny differently abled individuals the opportunity to access effectively and participate in the education experience. [18] The question about his education is in two parts. First, was the PC denied access to education and second, was his treatment within the education system such as to deny him his fundamental human rights. As with his medical records the claimant has not disclosed his education records, which he claims are with his mother in Mexico. The claimant does not have a good explanation for why he does not have his medical or education records. He disclosed other documents which he claims were sent to him by his father and brought to him in Canada by people returning to Canada from Mexico. He could not explain why, if these people were able to bring some documents, they could not bring his other documents. [19] I could not reconcile the PC's claims to post-secondary education made in his Schedule A with his narrative. I had asked the PC his highest level of education and he answered high school, which is consistent with the information he provided in the first part of box 7 on his Schedule A background/Declaration,9 in which he indicated that he completed six years of elementary school and 7 years of secondary school and no years of university/college. Yet in his Narrative he wrote that he "managed to go to university to obtain a XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX" and that he attended until 2010. I asked the PC to clarify his attendance at university and he answered from 2008 until XXXX 2010. I asked the PC the name of his university and after much hesitation he answered that he could not remember claiming that it had changed its name. Not only do I not find this explanation credible but he introduced no evidence to confirm that the university had changed its name. [20] In the next part of box 7, which asks claimants to list all of their secondary and post-secondary education, the claimant hand-wrote that he attended the "Universidad XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"10 in Puebla, Mexico from XXXX 2016 until XXXX 2018. I asked the PC to explain the discrepancy between his Schedule A claims and his Narrative and he answered that he did not know. I asked counsel to place his Schedule A before the claimant. He claimed not to have a copy, so I gave him my copy to put before the PC. [21] I asked the PC if the hand-written entry was an amendment he made to his Schedule A and he responded that it was made on-line. I repeated my question asking the PC if he had hand-written the information in Box 7 and if the initials in the side-bar were his, and after a great deal of hesitation he answered yes. I asked the PC if the hand-written information in his Schedule A was correct and he answered in the affirmative. [22] I asked the PC, in light of his testimony that he entered university in 2008 and left in 2010 how the hand-written information could be correct, and he answered that the second university was an on-line university. I asked the PC what evidence he had to support this claim and he answered that it was in Mexico. Again, the time to produce supporting documents is at his hearing, that they are in Mexico benefits no one. [23] These examples of omissions and discrepancies cause me to doubt the truthfulness of the PCs claims which goes to its credibility. [24] The PC testified that during his period of formal education he was terrorized, called a monster, given nicknames and excluded from activities. He testified that the parents of other students encouraged his exclusion believing that he had a contagious illness. He further testified that in secondary and high school he was the subject of violence, the butt of jokes and mistreatment, including mistreatment at the hands of his teacher. [25] The PC's father, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, wrote a letter confirming that the PC was able to attend pre-school, primary and secondary school.11 The PC's father provides information that suggests that while the PC suffered discrimination, bullying and name-calling at school he managed to succeed. He wrote that his wife, who was a XXXX until the PC was born, was concerned that the PC would not be able to "fulfill himself as a normal person," but that that they were sure that the PC would succeed, so they supported him in pre-school. He further wrote that in elementary school, the children discriminated against the PC because of his disability but that he managed to overcome their looks and name calling and "managed to stand out because he was a smart kid."12 The father further wrote that despite his classmates being "snoopers" and rejecting him, the PC got good grades in secondary school.13 He further wrote that high school was even more difficult for the PC because he was bullied but that he "managed to finish high school as an excellent student."14 Since I have no school records upon which to rely, I will take the PC's father at his word. [26] The PC's mother, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, also wrote a letter concerning the PC's history and treatment.15 The PC's mother describes how even family members discriminated against the PC. That in pre-school he was excluded from activities on the belief he could not participate. That he was rejected, teased and bullied while at school. She wrote that he was publicly ridiculed when he went into the street. [27] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, wrote a letter about his interactions with the PC (when he was XXXX XXXX XXXX years old) from XXXX 2002 until XXXX 2003.16 He related that the PC was referred to him by the principal of his school. XXXX XXXX XXXX describes how due to his disability the PC was bullied and consequently suffered low self-esteem and symptoms of depression which were reflected in his academic achievement and behavioral changes. XXXX XXXX XXXX describes how he counselled the PC's mother on how to support her son, how to provide attention and how to address the teachers in the classroom "with the purpose of working in a coordinated manner." He further noted that tests were applied, depressive symptoms were treated and family and effective communication [skills] were developed to address self-esteem,, image, body language, role playing "with the purpose of improving family life and school quality. He noted that activities and indications to work within the family were assigned. He made no comment as to the effectiveness of his counselling. [28] In a letter written by a university colleague, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirms that he and the PC attended at the University of XXXX studying XXXX XXXX.17 The PC acknowledges that he attended university in his narrative but that he was not able to complete his studies due to the persistent discrimination he faced. The claims in his narrative are consistent with his testimony that he had no one to talk to and was excluded and had to do everything on his own. He further testified that he faced so much discrimination that he was unable to complete university. [29] In describing their time at university XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote that the PC was "calm" and "reserved" which he attributed to his disability. That the PC chose to limit his connections in order to avoid discrimination and that in class he would avoid exposing his arm so that people would not make fun of him. XXXX XXXX XXXX also wrote that social rejection at university made it difficult for the PC to develop personally and professionally which caused him to transfer institutions.18 This information is inconsistent with the PC's information that does not mention his transferring institutions. Conclusions as to Education [30] In reaching conclusions about the PC's education I have been hindered in my analysis by the lack of documentation which the PC claims are available and with his mother in Mexico. He was able to have other documents transported to him but not other documents such as his education and medical documents. His education documents could have been produced with only a reasonable amount of effort, which he did not make. He has provided no reasonable explanation why his education documents are not before me. [31] I would expect that if a person suffered discrimination in education that they would have been denied the opportunity to complete high school or go on to university. While the evidence concerning the PC's early education through to the end of high school paints a disturbing picture of discrimination, harassment and bullying by his classmate, Mexican citizens and possibly teachers, it is also clear that the PC was not prevented from completing his education and that by high school he was an excellent student, according to the only source available to me - his father. [32] Similarly, if a person were to suffer serious discrimination in respect of their education then I would expect that the doors to higher education would be closed to them. In this case having completed high school the PC was able to qualify for and attend university, which he did not complete. This does not suggest to me that the discrimination the PC encountered in obtaining his education amounted to persecution, preventing him from obtaining and education. Employment [33] The disabled often encounter discrimination with respect to their ability to obtain employment and then when they obtain employment they are often subject to conditions that marginalize them and result in their being paid a lesser wage or dismissed from their employment on grounds of the disability. [34] In his Schedule A the PC indicates that from XXXX 2008 to XXXX 2017 he was unemployed in Puebla; a period of nine years. That for a two-month period from XXXXtoXXXX XXXX 2017 he was employed as a "XXXX." That from XXXX 2017 to XXXX 2018 he was unemployed in Puebla and that from XXXX 2018 to XXXX 2018 he was employed doing XXXX XXXX for a company in Puebla. I asked the PC if this information was correct which he did not answer. [35] I begin by noting that the PC has not disclosed any employment documents by way of records of employment, pay stubs and etc. In his Narrative he claimed that he got his first job in XXXX 2010 and that in XXXX 2014 he got a second job as a XXXX. I asked him how then the two documents could be correct; how he could be both unemployed and employed during the period. After much hesitation (and a recess) the PC evasively answered that his life has not been easy, he was born with a disability so it's hard for him to remember and that remembering is terrifying. I repeated my question as to which document was correct, both of which he had sworn were complete, true, and correct, which he evaded. [36] I asked the PC if he was ever employed in Mexico and he answered that he had seasonal work but for them it didn't matter because of his disability. I drew his attention to the fact that my question implied a yes or no answered and he then answered that he had been employed in Mexico. I find this a further example of the PC being evasive in his answers. [37] I repeated my question and the PC responded that he got his first job in 2010, due to the fact that the person doing the hiring did not know about his disability and that the salary was very low. He testified that this job was as a XXXX XXXX and that they did not notice his disability. He does not explain how an employer could miss the fact that he was missing a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He testified that when he showed up for work the manager did notice his disability and asked that he be fired only to be told that he could not be fired. I asked the PC if he knew why in he could not be fired and he answered he did not know. [38] The PC testified that he was then offered a job in the company XXXX so that he would not be visible in the store and damage its reputation. The PC claimed that this job was only temporary lasting for two-months but that other people hired for the job got extensions. I asked him why he was let go and he answered because he could not do the work of others which he knew he could. There is no independent evidence to support any of these claims. [39] In his narrative the PC then wrote that his next job was in XXXX 2014 when he was hired as a XXXX at a salary of XXXX Mexican Pesos (MXN) weekly and was expected to work from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm daily, from Monday to Saturday. The PC inconsistently testified that he got this job in XXXX. He wrote that he tried very hard at doing this job often working over-time but that his working conditions were such that after one-month he quit his job because he was working excessively and the pay was unfair. In testimony the PC claimed to have worked at this job for two months. [40] He explained that in respect of this job, he was employed by an employment agency company XXXX which hired persons with disabilities. I asked him where XXXX got its funding to hire persons with disabilities and he answered that he did not know. I asked him if he was working with other people with disabilities which he answered in the affirmative. [41] I asked the PC if he left this job voluntarily or was fired and he answered that he left voluntarily because the pay was not enough to live in Mexico. Fair enough, but this is hardly evidence of discriminatory practice on the part of his employer or the employment agency. [42] The PC testified that his third job was with a company called "XXXX XXXX," a central market. I asked him when this occurred and after much hesitation, he answered XXXX 2016. I asked the PC if he was sure of this date pointing out that in his Schedule A, he wrote that he started this job in XXXX 2017 and that in his Narrative wrote XXXX 2017. The PC clarified that XXXX was when they called him about the job which started in XXXX. His job was to XXXX XXXX and he testified that after two months he was fired because he could not do the same work as others. I asked the PC if in hiring him his employer knew he had a disability which he answered in the affirmative and that they fired him because of his disability. I asked him if he sought any accommodation because of his disability or seek redress for being fired because of his disability and he answered that he went to human resources and was told they would look into the matter and get back to him and to come back later. He claimed that people like him with disabilities do not get the same privileges as others and that they always face discrimination. [43] I asked the PC if he sought redress through the Commission for Human Rights which he answered in the affirmative and that he had asked for help from the Governor's wife who he identified as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who he claimed was in charge of the program he called DIF, "Discapacidad Portavoz" which he claimed was an organization which tries to help people when there is something wrong. He claimed he sent her an email to which he never received a response. [44] The PC disclosed an email dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016, addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and sent to the attention of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.19 In his email the PC explains that he is disabled and that he is seeing help because no one will give him a job and that despite his efforts because of his disability no one will employ him. [45] I asked the PC if he obtained work after leaving his third job and he answered that he sent out a number of emails telling prospective employers of his physical condition and whether they had work opportunities and that he was able to do any work activities.20 The PC claims that many of his emails were not answered and that when he went to the companies they would not hire him because of his physical appearance claiming that they could not hire people with disabilities. [46] I have reviewed several of the response emails sent to the PC by prospective employers.21 Most of them are acknowledgement letters. One is a rejection letter sent to him by XXXX Mexico explaining that his application had not been retained for further processing.22 The letter gives no reason for why his application was not retained. This is not evidence of discrimination on the basis of his disability. [47] I asked the PC if after he left his third job he was able to find another job. He testified that in despair he went back to XXXX and that they gave him a job offer for a company named XXXX in 2017. He claims that at XXXX he faced discrimination and worked doing XXXX XXXX. This information is inconsistent with his Schedule A which indicates that he worked for XXXX from XXXX 2018 until XXXX 2018. I asked the PC to clarify his testimony about working for XXXX and he returned to 2017, claiming that he worked there for two months and that he left there because of too much pressure, discrimination nicknames and a low salary, XXXX per week MXN. [48] The PC ask asked by his counsel if he knew what the Mexican minimum wage was and he replied XXXX MXN per day. Assuming that he worked from Monday to Saturday this equates to XXXX MXN per week. I note that the claimant was working for XXXX MXN per-week in 2014 and XXXX MXN per-week when he worked for XXXX, both wages being above the minimum wage. [49] While the evidence indicates that the PC had difficulty finding employment, it cannot be said that he was without employment. On the basis of the limited documentary evidence I cannot conclude that he was denied employment on the basis of his disability. Housing [50] There is no persuasive evidence that the PC suffered any discrimination with respect to housing. Until the time he left Mexico for Canada the evidence is that he resided with his parents in Puebla. Access to social/public services [51] The PC testified that a human resources organization gave him a card for people with disabilities to access public transit which he did not disclose. He testified that even with the transit card still forced to pay to use the bus. There is no independent evidence supporting claims. I asked him what he meant "human recourses organizations" and he testified that they are supposedly there to help people to give them solutions to their situations and to guide them to a better life. Interactions with state agents [52] I asked the PC what discrimination he faced from his interactions with agents of the Mexican government, the police or security forces. He claimed that he faced discrimination every day. That they put us in long lines, that they did not listen to him, were mean and abrupt. I asked the PC who he meant by "they" and he answered the police at the entrance to buildings and by "us" he meant, us the people. I asked him if he meant Mexican people and he testified no, the elderly and people with disabilities. The PC has introduced no independent evidence to support these claims regarding his interactions with state agents. Discrimination at the hands of non-state actors [53] In addition to the evidence of how he was treated while in school by classmate, parents, and teachers, I asked the PC if he every suffered any direct physical assault. The PC testified that he was assaulted on many occasions but gave only one example. [54] The PC wrote in his Narrative that in 2015 he was assaulted at a bus stop by four men who insulted him, calling him XXXX, one of them head-butting him in the face cutting his lip and breaking a tooth and then they kicked him while he was on the ground. I asked the PC if he reported the assault to the police which he answered in the negative. He claimed that because the men knew where he lived, they threatened his parents and niece telling him that they would hurt his family if he said anything. [55] I asked the PC if there were any other incidents of a similar nature and he responded while in school. I asked him if there were any other assaults when he was in public and he answered that people looked at him with disgust, that when he passed by, they would move away and made him feel insignificant. I considered a letter written by the PC's niece, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX23 in which she attests to how the PC was negatively treated when in public. Conclusions as to the subjective basis for the claim [56] The evidence satisfies me that the PC has had a difficult life which is entirely explainable by his disability and in general how society in Mexico has treated him. He has faced discrimination, harassment and insults at the hands of his schoolmates, teachers, employers and co-workers. Nevertheless, despite this discrimination the PC has been able to complete an education and even obtain entry to university. There is evidence that efforts were made by his school to obtains psychological counselling to help him deal with the stresses associated with his disability and ill-treatment. He has not been entirely denied employment. On two occasions he voluntarily left employment because of working conditions and claimed low pay. As I noted above the low pay he claims to have received was in excess of the stated Mexican minimum wage. He was able to benefit on two occasions from programs that he described as being directed at serving the needs of the disabled. [57] There is no persuasive evidence that the PC was denied medical care on the basis of his disability. His evidence is that at least until the age of eleven he was significantly engage with the Mexican healthcare system. [58] There is no persuasive evidence that he suffered discrimination in respect of housing. Is the claim objectively well-founded? [59] I will now consider if the claim is objectively well-founded, in particular whether in Mexico there has been failure of state protection for the disabled. I have consulted the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, version August 30, 2019 entered as exhibit 4.24 I have also considered the PC's disclosure of country condition documents. [60] There is not much information in the NDP for Mexico on the subject of the treatment of disabled. I first consulted a 2018 United Nations, Human Rights Council document entitled "National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21 Mexico" which under the heading "Human Rights and developments programmes" related that, * The principle of non-discrimination and the right to equality for persons with disabilities are enshrined in article 1 of the Constitution and in 11 local laws. * Six other local laws define the denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination. * The Act for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, which was issued in 2011, includes provision for the creation of the National Council for the Development and Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. * The National Programme for the Advancement and Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, published in 2014, covers such areas as access to health care, education, work, accessibility, tourism, political rights, administration of justice, sports and culture as well as the harmonization of legislation. * Seguro Popular, the people's health insurance scheme, has 444,737 beneficiaries with a physical and/or mental disabilities; 83 of every 100 persons with a disability is affiliated to a social security system or health-care service. * Under the national programmes Escuelas Dignas and Escuelas al CIEN the accessibility and lavatories of public schools have been adapted to accommodate children with disabilities. At the close of 2017, 8,891 schools had been adapted benefiting 1.2 million students. * Between 2012 and 2017, the Abriendo Espacios programme of the National Employment Service served 203,425 jobseekers with disabilities of whom 71,388 were placed in employment.25 [61] A second United Nations document published in 2018 also by the Human Rights Council entitled "Compilation on Mexico" under the heading Persons with Disabilities, it relates that, the [Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] was concerned at discrimination against persons with disabilities, and that, in some states, action was still pending on the adoption of laws prohibiting discrimination on grounds of disability. It recommended that Mexico harmonize its laws with the Convention, so that all federal states eliminated pejorative terminology relating to persons with disabilities."26 [62] From the United Sates (U.S.) Department of State (DOS) 2018 Human Rights Report I note that disability or the disabled do not figure into its list of human rights issues.27 Further, in this document under the heading "Persons with Disabilities" it reports that, "the law prohibits discrimination against persons with physical, sensory, intellectual, and mental disabilities. The government did not effectively enforce the law."28 Further on it reports that, "Public buildings and facilities often did not comply with the law requiring access for persons with disabilities. The education system provided special education for students with disabilities nationwide. Children with disabilities attended school at a lower rate than those without disabilities."29 [63] In the same document under the heading "Discrimination with Respect to Employment and Occupation" it reports that "The law prohibits discrimination with respect to employment or occupation on the basis of "race, nationality, age, religion, sex, political opinion, social status, handicap (or challenged capacity), economic status, health, pregnancy, language, sexual preference, or marital status." The government did not effectively enforce the law or regulations."30 Further on in the same section it relates that "[d]iscrimination in employment or occupation occurred against women, indigenous groups, persons with disabilities, LGBTI individuals, and migrant workers."31 [64] The claimants disclosed four (4) documents in their Country Conditions package the first two of which dealt with crime and corruption and were of little relevance to this matter especially as counsel made no submissions as to why they are relevant.32 The third and fourth documents are taken from a Human Rights Watch (HRW) publications in February and July, 2019.33 [65] The February HRW 2019 article is dated from February 2019 and reports on a government proposal to dissolve the National Council for People with Disabilities.34 The article argues that "[i]f López Obrador does indeed shut the National Council down, Mexico will need to replace it to meet its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities."35 The article is an advocacy piece which argues that instead of eliminating the council, "the government should strengthen it so it can successfully fulfill its rights protection function."36 I see this as part of a then emerging public policy debate on disability rights and programmes in Mexico after a change in government. [66] The July HRW publication reports on a request made by a group of disability rights organizations and experts to the Mexican government to guarantee the implementation of disability rights. This article is also an advocacy piece arguing a particular perspective on how Mexico should deal with disability rights issues and services to persons with disabilities using existing structure such as the National Council for the Development and Inclusion of Persons with Disability (CONADIS). The documents argues that "up until now CONADIS has not been effective in implementing national policies and programs to ensure the rights of people with disabilities, but it could be empowered to do so."37 [67] The article is also an advocacy piece and can also be seen as part of an ongoing public policy debate around proposed government policies and practice to serve the interests of the disabled in Mexico. In both cases, there is no more recent information as to what direction this debate took in Mexico into 2020. [68] Considered from the perspective of the adequacy of state protection, none of the documents considered satisfy me that there has been a failure of state protection in Mexico. The objective evidence is mixed indicating that there are state policies and mechanism to address persons with disabilities and disability issues and that more can be done to bring Mexico fully within its international obligations. Conclusions as to Persecution [69] In weighing the factors I am presented with evidence that establishes that the PC has suffered serious discrimination at the hands of fellow Mexicans throughout his life. On the other hand, there is also evidence that despite this discrimination he has been able to access healthcare and social programmes and complete his primary and secondary education. I accept that he has lost employment and may have been denied employment owing to discrimination on the basis of his disability. Nevertheless, he has been able to obtain employment and he has had access to government sponsored employment programs and while he might be dissatisfied with the job or the wage paid he has benefited from the existing programmes such as they are. [70] As noted above the objective evidence is mixed and I do not find a failure of state protection. [71] In consideration of all the evidence I do not find that the PC has suffered discrimination rising to the level of persecution. Accordingly, I do not find him to be a Convention refugee nor does the evidence support a conclusion on a balance of probabilities that he is a person in need of protection. The claims of the Co-claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX [72] While the claims were joined, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the PC and co-claimant were in a common-law relationship when they entered Canada. [73] A common-law relationship is defined in the Regulations made under the IRPA means, in relation to a person, an individual who is cohabiting with the person in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year.38 It is the claimants evidence that they met at university in XXXX 2015 and began a relationship. According to their address history given in their respective Schedule A Background/Declarations,39 which they both affirmed to be complete, true and correct, up until the time they came together to Canada in XXXX 2017 they resided at separate residential addressed in Puebla, Mexico. They testified that they did co-habit from XXXXuntil XXXX XXXX, 2018. This co-habitation is not reflected in their respective Schedule A's. They testified that they have co-habited continuously since they came to Canada which may be the case, however, for the purposes of a joined claim they did not have a family relationship when they entered Canada. I am not persuaded that they had anything more than a boy-friend/girl-friend relationship. [74] Accordingly, the co-claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX must establish that she has a separate claim against Mexico. The co-claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX has not established that she has a claim against Mexico. [75] The PC's narrative is mostly silent on the subject of any persecution or risk of harm faced by the co-claimant in Mexico. [76] I asked the co-claimant what the basis of her claim against Mexico was, and she responded the discrimination faced by the PC. That it was painful for her to see the way the PC suffers. She testified that when they were together on the street people would stare at them and ask why she was with the PC. She testified that she is afraid to go back because "they" know that she was with the PC. [77] I asked her who the "they" were and she answered criminal organizations. I asked why this claim is not made in the joint narrative and the co-claimant responded because they focused on the PC's claim. [78] There is no persuasive evidence before me that the co-claimant suffered any persecution or was subject to any threats of harm or to her life. Accordingly, I find that the co-claimant's claim is manifestly unfounded and I dismiss it. CONCLUSION [79] For all these reasons I find that the PC is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [80] I also find that the co-claimant's claim is manifestly unfounded. [81] I dismiss their claims. (signed) Kenneth D. MacLean Kenneth D. MacLean September 25, 2020 date 1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1). 2 Exhibit 2. 3 Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC. 4 James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991) pp. 104-105, cited with approval in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward (1993) 3 F.C. 675 (C.A.). 5 Sagharichi, Mojgan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-169-91), Isaac, Marceau, MacDonald, August 5, 1993. Reported: Sagharichi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.). 6 Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] 3 F.C. 675; (1993), 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 181 (F.C.A.). 7 Sagharichi, Mojgan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-169-91), Isaac, Marceau, MacDonald, August 5, 1993. Reported: Sagharichi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.), at para. 3. 8 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, [UNHCR Handbook], reedited Geneva, January 1992. 9 Exhibit 1. 10 Exhibit I Schedule A, page 2 of 4. 11 Ibid., pp. 25-30. 12 Ibid., p. 25. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., pp. 31-35. 16 Ibid., pp. 3640. 17 Exhibit 5, pp. 17-18. 18 Ibid., p. 17. 19 Exhibit 5, pp. 59- 20 Exhibit 5, pp. 57-58 & 61-62. 21 Ibid., pp. 48-56. 22 Ibid., pp. 54-56. 23 Exhibit 5, pp. 19-24. 24 Exhibit 4, National Documentation Package for Mexico, version 30 August 2019 25 Ibid., item 2.4. 26 Ibid., item 2.5. 27 Ibid., item 2.1, Executive Summary. 28 Ibid., p. 27. 29 Ibid., p. 28. 30 Ibid., p. 34. 31 Ibid., p. 35. 32 Exhibit 6, pp. 1-6. 33 Ibid., pp. 7-9 34 Ibid., p. 9. 35 Ibid., p. 9. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., pp. 7-8. 38 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, section 1(1). 39 Exhibit 1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD.29.01 (October 4, 2019) Disponible en français RPD File / Dossier de la SPR : TB8-27229 TB8-27356