2023 RLLR 39

2023 RLLR 39 Citation: 2023 RLLR 39 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: December 8, 2023 Panel: Kylee Carreno Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kelly Harvey Russ Country: Mexico RPD Number: VC3-03321 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2023-01721 ATIP Pages: N/A REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX who is a citizen of Mexico and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1] [2] In conducting the hearing and rendering these reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4[2] which offers guidance on the gender-specific aspects of this claim and the Chairperson’s Guideline 8[3] which offers guidance on trauma-informed adjudication and questioning. ALLEGATIONS [3] The full allegations are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) form, narrative, and amendments.[4] In summary, the claimant, a 29-year-old woman from Tlaxcala state, fears men from a prostitution ring known as “XXXX” who have kidnapped her on two occasions—the first when she was 15 years old—and forced her into prostitution for many years. She gave birth to a daughter in 2011 from rape from a XXXX. She believes that these men are operating in conjunction with the Los Zetas Cartel. [4] The claimant was also raised in the Indigenous community of XXXX, and although not Indigenous herself, she is perceived to be Indigenous, as her native language is the Indigenous Nahuatl and she has a notable accent when speaking Spanish. Her cultural characteristics such as her dress and appearance also reflect the Nahuatl community. Consequently, she has faced discrimination and harassment due to being perceived as Indigenous, and she advocates for the Nahautl people and culture. [5] The claimant arrived in Canada in XXXX 2022 and signed her BOC form in January 2023. DETERMINATION [6] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as per s. 96 of IRPA, as she has established a serious possibility of persecution if she were to return to Mexico. ANALYSIS Identity [7] I find that the personal identity of the claimant and her identity as a national of Mexico have been established through her testimony and the copy of her passport in evidence,[5] along with a copy of her Mexican birth certificate.[6] Nexus [8] I find that the allegations establish a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant, specifically membership in a particular social group as a woman facing gender-related violence due to her allegations of forced prostitution, non-domestic sexual violence, and attempted femicide. As per the guidance offered in Guideline 4 regarding an intersectional analysis, I have also considered her profile as a single mother perceived by her agents of persecution and Mexican society as Indigenous. For this reason, her claim will be analyzed under s. 96 of IRPA. Credibility [9] A claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed truthful unless there are reasons to doubt the veracity of their allegations.[7] In this case, the claimant’s testimony was candid, straightforward, spontaneous, and appeared genuine. The claimant did not attempt to embellish her testimony nor enhance the favourability of her claim, despite opportunity to do so. She testified extensively about her experience of growing up in an Indigenous community, the poverty and lack of services the community faced, the role of the XXXX within the community, including the common practice of recruitment of local Indigenous girls for trafficking at the age of 15 and their connections and operations with Los Zetas and local authorities, and the discrimination, harassment, and physical violence she faced by Mexican society in Puebla, Hidalgo, and Tlaxcala, including random physical assaults in the street, discrimination in employment, and a lack of medical and police services, on account of being perceived as Indigenous. The claimant’s testimony was generally consistent with the information provided in her BOC form, narrative, and amendments, and I find that there were no material inconsistencies in her testimony. Overall, I find the claimant to be a credible witness regarding the material facts established below. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution Findings of fact [10] The claimant provided supporting documents at exhibit 4.1, including: a copy of her Mexican voter ID card issued in Puebla in 2012; a stamped copy of a police report filed by the claimant for the crime of “victim of kidnapping, traffic, and prostitution” in Puebla in XXXX 2018; a stamped and signed hospital release report from XXXX 2018 stating that the claimant was hospitalized for XXXX days for “fractures in the body, signs of sexual violence and injuries by firearm” and required follow-up treatment; a XXXX 2009 certificate stating that the claimant is certified as a XXXX XXXX; photographs of the claimant as a child participating in a traditional Nahuatl ceremony of initiation into the community; and photographs of injuries the claimant suffered when kidnapped and confined. I find no reason to doubt the genuine nature of these documents and give them full weight in establishing, along with the claimant’s credible testimony, the facts outlined below: · The claimant was born and raised in the Nahuatl community and culture. Her first language is Nahuatl, she underwent cultural initiations into the Nahuatl community, she is perceived as Nahuatl due to her dress, accent, and practices, and she has faced discrimination and harassment both within her local community and other cities within Mexico due to the perception of others that she is Indigenous. She also advocates for the Nahuatl people in ways such as learning Spanish and becoming certified as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX so she could XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; · The claimant was kidnapped, kept at a “capture house” in Tenancingo, and forced into prostitution by the XXXX at age 15. There was a large group of criminals participating in this operation, and she frequently witnessed the exchange of drugs and women between the XXXX and members of Los Zetas. She heard these men verbally identified as Los Zetas in conversation with the XXXX. She additionally overheard their discussions about trafficking routes and operations. She also stated that it is common knowledge that Los Zetas control the drug trade in the Tlaxcala region. She stated that members of Los Zetas were the “main market” for the sex trafficking of the XXXX and that the XXXX often paid Los Zetas for drugs by giving them women. It was through the permission and business of Los Zetas that the XXXX were permitted to traffick in that region, and these women were often used as drug mules for Los Zetas. While the claimant heard many of the names of the traffickers, she did not know exactly who they were until she escaped and saw news about a man who had been captured and imprisoned in the USA for trafficking between Mexico and the USA. She recognized him as one of the XXXX who had held her captive; · The claimant gave birth to a daughter who was fathered by a XXXX in 2011. As the XXXX control the paperwork of the region, this man filed for a birth certificate, and is listed as the claimant’s daughter’s father on her birth certificate. However, this man has never met the claimant’s daughter nor attempted to contact or meet her; · The claimant escaped from the capture house on two occasions. After her first escape, she lived in Puebla, roughly an hour and a half drive away from Tenancingo, where she kept her daughter hidden and only went outside to work. She was found by men she recognized from the capture house which she believes was by coincidence, as they recognized her when she was out in public, she ran from them, they put a gun to her head, and forced her into their vehicle; · The second time the claimant escaped with the assistance of another man who was working for, but fearful of, the XXXX and also wanted to leave. They intended to go to Puebla to get her daughter and escape to another city, but they were found by the XXXX in Puebla, where they were shot at and crashed their vehicle. The man assisting the claimant died. The claimant received medical attention and filed a police report. The claimant then relocated to Hidalgo, around a four to five hour drive from Tenancingo, where she attempted to change her clothing and hairstyle and live in hiding as much as possible; · Around one year after relocating to Hidalgo, the claimant began to receive weekly phone calls from different people who did not identify themselves but continually told her that they knew where she was and that they would come to take her back to the capture house. The claimant moved houses and changed her phone number, but continued to receive these phone calls, which then began every 2 days. It was at this point she decided to come to Canada; · The claimant has not heard from any member of the XXXX or Los Zetas since arriving in Canada. The claimant’s daughter continues to live in Mexico with her parents, who moved cities after she left. The last time the claimant spoke with her parents was one year ago, as she wishes to keep them safe, and they informed her that they would continue to live in hiding to keep her daughter safe. While the claimant stated that no member of her family has been threatened or harmed by her agents of persecution, she is fearful for her daughter’s safety, as she is now 12 years old and the recruitment of women into the prostitution ring beings around age 15. She fears that if her daughter is found and connected to her, her daughter will experience the same assaults she did. Delay in claiming protection in Canada [11] The claimant travelled to Canada in XXXX 2022 and she signed her BOC form in January 2023. She entered Canada on a visitor’s eTA that provided her with legal visitor status until XXXX 2022. She stated that before her status expired, she began doing research into protection for individuals in her situation and she learned online about refugee protection. She then filed a claim with legal aid since she did not have money, and waited for their approval. In September 2022 she was matched with a lawyer, and she began filling out her forms to claim refugee protection. Additionally, she filed an application for an extension on her visitor’s visa, but found out in October 2022 that it was denied. I find these explanations reasonable, as the claimant did not know about refugee protection until she began doing research when her legal status was expiring, she submitted an extension application and did not find out it was denied until October 2022, and she had already been working with a lawyer at this time to complete her refugee application. I, therefore, do not draw a negative inference regarding the claimant’s subjective fear from her delay in claiming protection in Canada after entering in XXXX 2022. Conclusions on subjective fear [12] Overall, I find that the claimant has established a subjective fear of persecution from the XXXX and members of the Los Zetas cartel, including a future risk of forced prostitution and death. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant was raised in the Nahuatl community and culture, is perceived by her kidnappers and generally by Mexican society to be an Indigenous Nahuatl woman, and that she has experienced discrimination, harassment, and physical violence due to perceptions that she is Indigenous. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant was kidnapped by the XXXX, that the claimant was in close contact with members of Los Zetas, that the XXXX work in collaboration with Los Zetas, and that the claimant has detailed information about the human, sex, and drug trafficking operations of the XXXX and Los Zetas. Objective basis [13] According to the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, last updated September 29, 2023,[8] “patriarchal and conservative values are still prevalent in Mexican society”[9] and violence against women is a significant problem. Item 2.8 indicated that in a 2023 report, “sexual abuse…against women [is] common, and perpetrators are rarely punished”.[10] Mexico is listed as being within the top 20 worst countries in the world for violence against women.[11] NDP item 5.24 states that between 2018-2020, “the National Register of Disappeared and Unlocated Persons documented the disappearance of 19,938 women, girls, and adolescents in Mexico”. Sources from a 2021 RIR indicate that the rate of femicides in Mexico has increased by 137 percent over the last five years, while homicides have comparatively increased by 35 percent over the same period.[12] According to official statistics, 968 femicides were recorded in 2022; some nongovernmental sources say the true number is likely much higher.[13] It is widely acknowledged between many sources that rates of femicide are underreported. [14] Item 2.8 states that “Mexico is a major source, transit, and destination country for trafficking in persons, including women and children, many of whom are subject to forced labor and sexual exploitation. Organized criminal gangs are heavily involved in human trafficking in Mexico and into the United States.”[14] According to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Mexican state adopted in 2012 the “General Act for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Crimes of Trafficking in Persons and for the Protection and Assistance of Victims”.[15] However, the Committee expressed concerns regarding a lack of harmonized and coordinated mechanisms between state and municipal levels; a lack of comprehensive anti-trafficking strategy and limited data; low prosecution and conviction rates of traffickers; revictimization and prosecution of trafficking victims; insufficient assistance, rehabilitation, compensation, and reintegration measures for victims; and complicity between State agents and international organized crime gangs, corruption and impunity, and insufficient coordination with neighbouring countries in preventing and prosecuting traffickers and supporting victims.[16] [15] Further, the Committee reported police violence and extortion of women in prostitution, arbitrary arrests and detention without warrants, and insufficient services and programs for women including exit programmes for women seeking to leave prostitution.[17] Additionally, the objective evidence indicates an increased vulnerability for Indigenous women[18]—or, in the claimant’s particular circumstances, a woman perceived as Indigenous—regarding trafficking and sexual violence, including a lack of accessibility to victims services,[19] an increased danger to criminal violence,[20] a lack of a structured and comprehensive strategy on the design and implementation of culturally appropriate policies to prevent, investigate, punish, and redress acts of violence against indigenous women,[21] a higher growth rate of femicides amongst Indigenous communities,[22] stereotyped and negative portrayals of Indigenous women in the media,[23] limited access to the formal labour market,[24] insufficient access to health care, education, and employment opportunities,[25] a higher susceptibility to being “re-victimized” by authorities,[26] amongst other factors. NDP item 5.21 states that cartels place Indigenous women in danger and that seventy percent of human trafficking victims are Indigenous women. [16] An exhibit 4.2 article identifies Tenancingo as the “center of trafficking in women for sexual exploitation” and states that “in safe houses built in that demarcation the victims are received who are then sent to houses, hotels and bars in neighbouring municipalities and to other entities and countries such as the United States”.[27] This article also indicates that trafficking of women in Tenancingo includes underage girls and that prosecution levels are low in comparison to complaints filed.[28] An additional exhibit 5.2 article identifies Tlaxcala as “known worldwide for the trafficking network that operates in the municipality of Tenancingo”, and speaks about the XXXX XXXX XXXX whom I find the claimant credibly established, on a balance of probabilities, were individuals who were involved in her capture and forced prostitution, as she recognized them as individuals at the capture house.[29] [17] Item 5.20 indicates that “[m]any of the femicides linked to organized crime are of women whose partner was involved with or targeted by a criminal group”.[30] While I note that the claimant was not romantically involved with a XXXX, her child’s legally-recognized father is a XXXX, she was the subject of sexual abuse and assaults by members of these organized crime groups over many years, and I find that she is perceived as property of these groups due to their continued efforts to pursue her and bring her back to their capture house after she escaped. According to the objective evidence, in the culture surrounding cartels and gangs, “women are ‘considered disposable’…and violence committed against them represents ‘gang cohesion and masculinity’”, and organized crime culture is “‘very macho, patriarchal, with very sexist undertones’”.[31] NDP item 7.8 states that criminal violence has become highly intense, diversified, and popularized over the past two decades in Mexico, with widespread violence and ungovernability affecting almost all Mexican states. [18] The claimant has established that the men who kidnapped, held, and forced her into prostitution were working in partnership with the Los Zetas cartel. It is objectively well-established that a high percentage of police officers in Mexico work in partnership with criminal organizations,[32] and that Los Zetas are a prominent transnational drug trafficking organization that are known for organized violence. They have a significant presence in the Gulf side of Mexico and have extended reach in Chihuahua and some pacific states.[33] While the Los Zetas are no longer as powerful as in their peak in 2011 and 2012, they still are active, are known to kill those who cannot pay extortion fees or who refuse to work for them, and have resisted government efforts to curtail their networks.[34] Item 7.2 indicates that Los Zetas’ “main asset is not drug smuggling but organized violence.”[35] Item 7.16 indicates that murder, kidnappings, and torture are seen by cartels as a legitimate part of their drug-trafficking business. Item 7.32 states that Los Zetas are active throughout numerous provinces in Mexico, and the group has fragmented into smaller groups, which continue to be active under different names throughout many regions in Mexico. Today, the fragmenting of larger groups has resulted in “criminal organizations and groups form[ing] temporary alliances based on common but constantly evolving interests”.[36] [19] Overall, I find that the objective evidence is aligned with the claimant’s testimony regarding her personal experience of being kidnapped, forced into prostitution, and pursued by the XXXX and their Los Zetas accomplices. Conclusions on well-founded fear of persecution [20] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution, including further forced prostitution and death, if she were to return to Mexico. State Protection [21] Except in situations of complete breakdown of the state apparatus, the state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. I find that the claimant has rebutted this presumption, as her testimony and the objective evidence demonstrate that the state will not provide her with adequate protection. [22] The claimant testified that the Nahuatl community she grew up in was frequently denied attention from authorities due to their Nahuatl language and culture. She attempted to obtain protection from authorities in Puebla when she first escaped the capture house, but the police officers listened to her story and refused to file a complaint. When she escaped the second time, she was hospitalized, and police came to see her in the hospital. She was able to file a report on this occasion, a copy of which is in evidence.[37] She stated that while they initially did not want to take her report, the presence of the state police and media due to the shooting involved in the incident pressured the police into taking a formal complaint. However, she stated that although they gave her a copy of the complaint, they did not offer her protection, and even after following up on the report, they did not assist her. When the claimant was in Hidalgo, she attempted to seek protection from police and they told her that since she was kidnapped in a different location and was now living in Hidalgo, they could not do anything, and she could continue living there until the XXXX found her again. She again attempted to report to police when she began receiving the threatening phone calls, but they did not pay attention to her or file a report. [23] The NDP at item 7.18 states that “various police forces in Mexico…lack human and material resources in order to properly investigate crimes”. Numerous sources report that police forces in Mexico are corrupt, collude with criminal organizations, and often are influenced by bribes, attributed to “poor working conditions in law enforcement agencies”.[38] This item also states that “93.2 percent of all crimes committed were either not reported or not investigated” with a large amount of blame placed on police, as citizens saw reporting as “a waste of time”, they had a “lack of trust in authorities”, there were “difficulties and a [long reporting] process”, authorities had a “hostile attitude”, and they feared “being victims of extortion”.[39] More than half of Mexican citizens saw both police and the Attorney General’s office as corrupt.[40] Item 7.15 states that “Los Zetas or associated splinter groups have infiltrated police departments…[and] state governments” in some regions. NDP item 10.2 corroborates the high risk of police corruption in Mexico, that “corruption…underpins state collusion with criminals”, and that in most Mexican states, local police “have been infiltrated by organized crime”. This source states that this includes police at all levels—federal, state, and local—and that entire police forces have been disbanded, suspended, or arrested due to the penetration of organized crime and corruption. Due to this reality, there is no trust between police forces and this leads to a lack of communication between different levels of security forces due to the infiltration of drug cartels.[41] Police forces are often paid bribes by cartels and are known to have participated in kidnappings and murders for cartels, including Los Zetas.[42] [24] Compounding the above, the country condition documents indicate that laws addressing violence against women are not effectively enforced. Item 5.11 states that “there are often large differences between the existing laws and their implementation. Despite strong existing legislation protecting women’s rights and preventing violence against women, enforcement varies widely and largely depends on social norms”. Implementation of a 2007 law[43] designed to protect women from such gender-based crimes remains halting, particularly at the state level, and impunity is the norm for the killers of hundreds of women each year.[44] State authorities can issue “gender alerts” that trigger greater scrutiny and an influx of resources to combat an epidemic of violence against women, but the mechanism has proven ineffective.[45] The government cut funding for women’s services in 2022, and “the president frequently dismissed feminists as allies of the political opposition”.[46] As mentioned above, implementation for legislation against sex trafficking is insufficient and victims are often criminalized themselves. [25] The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) also stated that there was “systemic impunity” for crimes against women in Mexico, where 90% of crimes go unreported, uninvestigated or unpunished.[47]The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, amongst other sources, has emphasized that there are “deep-rooted institutional, structural and practical barriers” which continue to hinder access to justice for women, including that officials within the criminal justice system, including law enforcement officers, hold “discriminatory stereotypes” and “limited knowledge” of women’s rights.[48] Item 5.12 states that “the Mexican police and armed forces routinely torture and ill-treat women, and that sexual violence is routine during arrest and interrogation”, with 72% of arrested women reporting sexual violence during arrest or in the hours that followed.[49] Consequently, it is reported that an estimated 78% of women facing gender-based violence do not seek institutional help or report to authorities.[50] [26] I find that the lack of assistance the claimant received on multiple occasions when reporting to police in multiple states of Mexico is aligned with the conditions set out in the objective documentation. I, therefore, find that state protection is inadequate at an operational level and that it would not be forthcoming to the claimant in her particular circumstances. Internal Flight Alternative [27] For an internal flight alternative (or IFA) to be viable, it must satisfy both prongs of a two-prong test on a balance of probabilities. I must assess whether there is another location in Mexico in which the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of harm, and whether it would be reasonable to expect her to move there.[51] At the start of the hearing, Mexico City and Merida were proposed as potential IFA locations. Motivation [28] As established above, the XXXX found the claimant’s location on two occasions when she escaped. While she testified that she believes it was a coincidence she was found in Puebla when she saw XXXX in public, I also note that she stated in her narrative the XXXX believed she was dead, and she had only escaped after they left her for dead in the countryside. Therefore, I find that although this encounter may have been by coincidence and not a targeted search for the claimant, it is reasonable that they would not be searching for her after they believed they had previously killed her. I also note that immediately upon seeing her, these men put a gun to her head and forced her into their vehicle where they took her back to the capture house. The second occasion she escaped, she was followed, shot at, and the man who assisted her escape died. Once she moved to Hidalgo, I find that she credibly established that the men from the XXXX continued to harass and threaten her through phone calls, stating they were coming to get her, despite moving homes and changing phone numbers. Further, I find that the claimant credibly established that she revealed “absolutely everything she had lived over various years” to the police when she attempted to file, and on one occasion successfully filed, a report against the XXXX and Los Zetas men. [29] I note that the objective evidence mentioned above points to a high level of revictimization of sex trafficking victims. I also note that the objective evidence states at NDP item 7.32 that “some of the motivators or factors that influence Los Zetas’ desire to track or retaliate against certain individuals include drugs, money, economic status, perceived rivals, ‘defectors,’ and filing a police report against Los Zetas”, and that “personal feuds, money, and love affairs are ‘common motivators or factors’”.[52] This source also states that “the more personal the feud, the higher the possibility of retaliation”.[53] While there is limited information regarding potential motivators for XXXX to pursue a victim who has escaped, as the claimant has credibly established that the XXXX work in close partnership with Los Zetas, that she personally overheard confidential conversations between XXXX and Los Zetas, and that she reported against both the XXXX and Los Zetas when she told the police about her entire experience while captured, I find that members of Los Zetas would be equally motivated to find and harm the claimant due to her reports made against them and the confidential information she has about their operations. Furthermore, I find that the XXXX’ continued pursuit of the claimant after she escaped, the fact that they brought her back into captivity after she had escaped and was found in a different city, and the fact that she also has confidential information about the XXXX create a set of circumstances that establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the XXXX are motivated to find and harm her anywhere in Mexico, including forcing her back into captivity and prostitution, or death. Means [30] The claimant testified that the XXXX travel to different regions in Mexico to find girls to “recruit” into their sex trafficking operation. She states that there are people working for them throughout the entire country and they are looking in general to capture women with her characteristics—particularly those they perceive to be Indigenous. She states that between the XXXX and Los Zetas, many women are killed, so they need to consistently recruit more women to replace the ones who are murdered. Therefore, not only will she be personally searched for by the XXXX, she stated she is also vulnerable to being captured while living in hiding by men working for the XXXX who are not aware of her personal identity, simply based on her characteristics as a woman perceived to be Indigenous. As outlined above, the objective evidence demonstrates that Indigenous women, including those perceived by these criminal groups to be Indigenous, are more vulnerable to gender-based violence and sexual assaults, including sex trafficking. [31] I find that the claimant has credibly established that members of the Los Zetas cartel would be willing to assist the XXXX in employing their resources to find the claimant throughout Mexico for the reasons mentioned above. NDP item 7.32 states that “Los Zetas is ‘capable of tracking down enemies, defectors, and people of specific interest, including people fleeing to other states and cities using ‘different methods ranging from direct tracking to information provided by corrupt authorities’”. This source also states that “it may not be too hard for a specific violent actor to retaliate against a person, no matter where in the country [they] may be relocated” as there is a “current situation of impunity and weakness of the rule of law”.[54] This source further specifies that “Los Zetas uses satellites, antennas, communication networks, and GPS, as well as taxi drivers as informal informants” and that “‘anyone can be found anywhere’ through family, friends, social media, as well as information from telephone companies, and government and law enforcement databases”.[55] [32] Los Zetas are said to have an extensive covert communications network across Mexico which allows them to monitor drug trafficking throughout the country and into neighbouring countries.[56] This network has also been used to “plan attacks and seize territory held by other groups” along with surveillance and “off the grid” communication.[57] The source states that “the network could be managed remotely, connecting members from different areas to coordinate and communicate about operations”.[58] Los Zetas also use employed lookouts, the monitoring of social media feeds and accounts, and mapping software as tracking tools. Item 7.8 states that “criminal groups use phone and cellphone companies” and that they may bribe these companies to track phone accounts, messages, and social networks of relatives to find targeted individuals in hiding. Further, it is reported that “corrupt Mexican officials have helped drug cartels acquire spyware ‘which can be used to hack mobile phones’”.[59] Counsel submitted that Los Zetas have used their connections with telephone companies to obtain the claimant’s telephone number, and their phone calls to the claimant have been a means to track her location. While I find there is insufficient evidence before me to establish the agent of persecutions’ intention of finding the claimant through telephone calls, I do note that the objective evidence establishes Los Zetas have connections with telephone companies, and have used information obtained from these companies to find targeted individuals. [33] NDP item 7.8 states that “if a criminal group has ‘very strong motivation to find and retaliate against a certain person,’ ‘especially if the criminal group were one of the more powerful groups in Mexico’ and/or ‘a group with indications of having cooperation from relevant authorities,’ then ‘[the ability to track or retaliate against a certain person] would be a reasonable concern to have’”. This source also states that if organized crime groups in other parts of Mexico are interested and willing to retaliate against people relocated in Merida, Campeche, Cabo San Lucas or Mexico City, they could do it easily.[60] An RIR at item 7.15 states that “a personal vendetta could motivate a gang to track someone outside their area, and that gangs can use ‘corrupt law enforcement agents’ to obtain information about people they pursue”.[61] I find that the history of these men finding out information about the claimant, including her location and telephone numbers, their profiles as members of a prominent sex trafficking operation and Los Zetas, and the objective evidence outlined above establish that these men would have the means to find the claimant in the IFA locations or anywhere in Mexico. [34] As I have found that these XXXX and members of Los Zetas have the motivation and means to find the claimant throughout Mexico, and it is therefore not safe for the claimant to return anywhere in Mexico, including the proposed IFAs, there is no need to consider whether her relocation to an IFA location would be reasonable. I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Mexico. [35] Based on the information before me, I find that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in Mexico. CONCLUSION [36] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accept her claim. (signed) Kylee Carreno December 8, 2023 [1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board, updated July 18, 2022. [3] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 8: Accessibility to IRB Proceedings—Procedural Accommodations and Substantive Considerations, updated October 31, 2023. [4] Exhibits 2.1-2.2. [5] Exhibit 1.1. [6] Exhibit 4.1. [7] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302, 31 N.R. 34 (CA). [8] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, updated September 29, 2023. [9] Exhibit 3, item 5.11. [10] Exhibit 3, item 2.8. [11] Exhibit 3, item 5.3. [12] Exhibit 3, item 5.20. [13] Exhibit 3, item 2.8. [14] Exhibit 3, item 2.8. [15] Exhibit 3, item 5.8. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Exhibit 3, item 2.10. [19] Exhibit 3, item 2.7. [20] Exhibit 3, item 2.8. [21] Exhibit 3, item 2.10. [22] Exhibit 3, item 5.6. [23] Exhibit 3, item 5.8. [24] Ibid. [25] Ibid; exhibit 3, item 5.19. [26] Exhibit 3, item 5.10. [27] Exhibit 4.2, page 24. [28] Ibid, page 25. [29] Exhibit 5.2, page 100. [30] Exhibit 3, item 5.20. [31] Exhibit 3, item 5.20. [32] Exhibit 3, item 10.2. [33] Exhibit 3, item 7.2. [34] Ibid. [35] Ibid. [36] Exhibit 3, item 7.18. [37] Exhibit 4.1, pages 8-10. [38] Exhibit 3, item 7.18. [39] Ibid. [40] Ibid. [41] Exhibit 3, item 10.2. [42] Ibid. [43] Exhibit 3, item 5.1; item 2.8. [44] Exhibit 3, item 2.8. [45] Ibid. [46] Ibid. [47] Exhibit 3, item 5.20. [48] Exhibit 3, item 5.20. [49] Exhibit 3, item 5.12. [50] Exhibit 3, item 5.17. [51] Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 2003 FC 1075. [52] Exhibit 3, item 7.32. [53] Ibid. [54] Exhibit 3, item 7.32. [55] Ibid. [56] Exhibit 3, item 7.15. [57] Ibid. [58] Ibid. [59] Exhibit 3, item 7.8. [60] Exhibit 3, item 7.8. [61] Exhibit 3, item 7.15.