TC0-08697

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-08697 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 23, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Richard Sheitoyan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal N/A Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss this appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Mexico who alleges being the object of extortion by members of the criminal group Los Zetas. A phone call asking for payments was received in mid-April 2017, while he was working as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He changed his telephone number on the advice of police with whom he had filed a complaint. Intercepted on June 8, 2017 while on his way to XXXX XXXX XXXX, he was beaten, had his vehicle stolen as retribution for not having made expected payments and for having complained to the police. A move to Mexico City where he stayed with his cousin for a year was prompted by the advice of police to change his address after he filed another complaint. Upon his return in XXXX 2018, members reminded him of his failure to make payments and, on October 7, 2018, was once again intercepted, robbed of the money he was carrying, beaten and had his vehicle stolen. While at the police station to file another complaint on October 10, 2018, he noticed one of the individuals who had assaulted him. This prompted him to file a complaint with the Federal Public Ministry in Mexico City. On January 30, 2019 he received another call threatening him with decapitation for having made another complaint whereupon he applied for an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) and travelled to Canada to file his claim. [2] Although raising certain credibility concerns regarding the Appellant's subjective fear, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluded to the existence of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in the areas of Mexico City or Merida. [3] The Appellant's memorandum of argumentation alleges the RPD erred in finding that: - there was a statistically safe IFA for him; - there was no risk of cruel, unusual treatment or danger of torture upon return to Mexico. [4] IFA is the determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [6] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 [7] The Appellant: - worked in the family XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; - received a call for extortion from members of Los Zetas in mid April 2017; - filed a police complaint and changed phone number; - was intercepted on June 8, 2017, beaten and had his vehicle stolen for his failure to submit to the extortion demand; - filed another police complaint and moved in with a cousin in Mexico City until June 2018; - returned to his hometown of Tuxpan, three hours from Mexico City and was once again intercepted on October 7, 2018 where he was robbed, beaten and once again had his vehicle stolen; - noticed one of the individuals who had assaulted him at the police station while there to file another complaint on October 10, 2018; - decided to file a complaint with the Federal Public Ministry in Mexico City; - received a phone call threatening him with decapitation for having made another complaint on January 30, 2019. Availability of a safe IFA [8] The Appellant's memorandum of argumentation alleges the RPD erred in finding there was a statistically safe IFA for him. He pleads the RPD failed to consider the Appellant's evidence and testimony nor the strength of Los Zetas in Mexico. [9] The RPD's analysis of the IFA takes into consideration the principles laid out by the Federal Court of Appeal, namely an IFA that is realistic, attainable, and accessible with barriers reasonably surmountable without requiring the Appellant to undergo undue hardship either in travelling there or remaining there. The two-pronged test used to consider the viability of an IFA rests on the panel assuring itself that: - on a balance of probabilities, there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture for the Appellant in the IFA and; - the IFA is objectively reasonable. [10] The RPD noted the Appellant stayed in the same location in Mexico City, one of the two designated IFAs, for a period of one year without any pursuit from, problems or interactions with cartel members. If, as the Appellant claims, the cartel could easily find him throughout Mexico because of their structure, sophistication and organisation, then his having made two police complaints and having refused to pay the extorted sums would qualify for their continued interest in him. Either the cartel had no interest or were unable to find him. Furthermore, his family remained in Tuxpan and continued the operation of their family ranch. Throughout this time, none of them encountered any issues whereas the National Documentation Package for Mexico indicates retribution towards close ones is usually encountered as a coercive incentive in extortion.2 [11] Furthermore, the RPD correctly concluded nothing in his profile allows it to conclude the Appellant faces any personalized risk not faced by the rest of the Mexico City population. [12] The absence of consequences while having stayed in Mexico City for a period of one year and the importance of the violation of the extorters' orders correctly allows the RPD to conclude that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant has no serious possibility of persecution nor risk to his life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture in Mexico City. Objectively reasonable to relocate [13] The RPD asked itself whether the proposed IFA would be unduly harsh for the Appellant. Evidence shows the Appellant is educated, resourceful and demonstrates initiative whether in his development of business, making travel arrangements, relocating himself or finding living accommodations and work. He also benefits from a social network with family living in Mexico City who have shown an ability and willingness to help him. [14] The analysis correctly leads the RPD to conclude the Appellant has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he will face serious social, economic barriers or a reduction in his quality of life by relocating to the IFA of Mexico City. CONCLUSION [15] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Me Richard Sheitoyan Richard Sheitoyan March 23, 2021 Date RS/lp 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, National Documentation Package for Mexico (30 August 2019), tab 7.16: The Victimology of Extortions in Mexico. Rice University. James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Gary J. Hale. October 2016. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC0-08697 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français