TC2-13072

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-13072 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision December 20, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Colin Anderson Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Nallely Gonzalez Perez 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 INTRODUCTION AND DECISION [1] The following reasons explain why I am dismissing the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant). The Appellant has appealed the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) May 6, 2022 decision that rejected his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant has asked that I substitute the RPD's decision with my own finding that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, or that I return the file to the RPD for redetermination. I find that the RPD was correct to determine that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [2] The Appellant has made the following key allegations in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form and at the RPD hearing: * That he is a citizen of Mexico and no other country. He lived in XXXX, Colima State. * That he is a gay man. He describes himself as "feminine," though he has not gone into detail regarding what that means to him.1 He has indicated that he feels his orientation is identifiable to others unless he is repressing his true self. * That he was subject to anti-gay bullying throughout his school years. He has recounted many incidents of harassment, assault, and ostracization from his childhood peers, though he has also indicated that he had friends that supported him as well. School officials were unhelpful. * That he was subject to verbal and physical abuse from his father, who did not accept his orientation. The Appellant's mother was upset but told her son that she loved and supported him no matter what (she has also continued to support him in his refugee claim). The rest of the Appellant's family viewed his orientation as a disease that could be cured through religion.2 The Appellant's father became abusive to his mother, his mother left him, and his father has threatened both their lives. * That following an incident of abuse from his father, the Appellant ran away from home. He eventually found a job and rented his own house. He had a partner and went socializing in the local Colima gay community. * That he was subject to several incidents of anti-gay street violence at the hands of strangers in Colima. He was also once attacked by a cab driver with a knife. He did not report these incidents to the police because he did not have enough information and felt that the police would not help. * That he eventually met another gay man at his job who told him to move to Guadalajara, because Guadalajara "was not so prejudiced to the gay community..."3 The Appellant arranged a work transfer and an aunt took him in while in Guadalajara. The Appellant met a new partner. He opened up about his sexuality to his new coworkers. They "took it very well."4 * That he was also subject to an incident of anti-gay street violence in Guadalajara at the hands of a stranger. Following the assault, he changed houses and jobs again. He lived with a group of other gay friends. Again, he came out to his new co-workers, who "took it well" and made him feel "confident and comfortable."5 His supervisor was silent about his orientation. He socialized in the gay community in Guadalajara. * That he had two incidents at work in which customers insulted him and made anti-gay comments. His supervisors were unsupportive and told him to "behave like a man" at work. He tried to behave "as heterosexual as possible" thereafter.6 * That he eventually went on vacation to Toronto, where he attended the Pride Festival. He found Toronto to be extremely welcoming and full of opportunities. He was encouraged by friends to move. He saved up money to move by working extra jobs in Guadalajara. He applied for a Study Permit to Canada, but was refused. He then made a refugee claim. * The Appellant fears that he will continue to face incidents of discrimination in Mexico that will amount to persecution. He also fears that at some point in the future, he could be assaulted or killed by a stranger for being gay. He finally fears that his father could come looking for him and kill him. [3] The RPD found that the Appellant's claim failed because he has a valid Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Mexico City that meets both prongs of the applicable test. [4] The Appellant has argued on appeal that the RPD erred by mis-weighing the evidence, by failing to consider all the country condition evidence showing that Mexican society is hostile to gay men, and by failing to recognize the cumulative effect of many different incidents of discrimination. He has argued that the IFA is also unreasonable because he would not have access to adequate state protection. He has finally sought to introduce new country condition evidence on appeal in the form of media reports. PRELIMINARY MATTERS Some new evidence is admissible [5] The Appellant has requested the admission of five media articles as new evidence in this appeal. In my review, I find that four of them are admissible and one is not. The articles are as follows: * An article from the Los Angeles Times, dated April 12, 2022.7 * An article from Global-E, dated May 17, 2022.8 * An article from Global-E, dated May 18, 2022.9 * An article from Mexico News Daily, dated June 8, 2022.10 * An article from the Yucatan Times, dated June 26, 2022.11 [6] In order to be admissible, the articles must meet the requirements set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) subsection 110(4) and they must also be new, relevant, and credible. The article from the Los Angeles Times was published over a week before the date of the RPD hearing. While the Appellant has stated that he could not reasonably get the article to the RPD in time for its decision nearly a month later (on May 6, 2022), he has not explained why. For this reason, I do not see how this article meets the requirements of IRPA subsection 110(4) and I therefore cannot admit it to the appeal. [7] The other four articles all arose after the date of the RPD decision. They therefore could not have reasonably been presented to the RPD in time for its decision and they meet the requirements of IRPA subsection 110(4). These articles also are new, in that they contain updated country condition information that was not before the RPD, they are relevant to the situation of gay men in Mexico in general, and they are credible in that they appear to be real media articles published by their respective agencies. I will admit these four articles to the appeal. No oral hearing is allowed [8] The Appellant has requested an oral hearing at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). I am only entitled to call an oral hearing when, among other things, there is new evidence admitted which raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal. In this case, the RPD had no concerns with respect to the Appellant's credibility, and I agree with that assessment. The new evidence is credible. It raises no issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant. For this reason, no oral hearing is allowed. The role of the RAD [9] I have reviewed the entirety of the written record and have listened to the audio recording of the RPD hearing. The RPD had no meaningful advantage over me in assessing the credibility of oral testimony. I have therefore undertaken a review of the correctness of the RPD's decision throughout. IFA as the determinative issue [10] As I will explain below, I find that the RPD was correct to determine that the Appellant has a valid IFA that meets both prongs of the applicable test. This issue is determinative of this appeal. ANALYSIS The RPD erred in its statement of the IFA test [11] The RPD correctly proposed Mexico City as a possible IFA destination for the Appellant at the outset of the hearing, and then allowed the Appellant to present his case as to why he believes Mexico City fails on either of the two prongs of the applicable test. The RPD made a minor error in stating the test, because it failed to include the portion referencing a serious possibility of persecution (the RPD referred only to a section 97 IFA analysis). I do not think that this is a fatal error on the part of the RPD, because the RPD did in fact consider the possibility of persecution later in its substantive analysis. For that reason I see the misstatement of the test as a minor oversight. [12] For clarity, the correct two-pronged test endorsed by the Federal Court is as follows: ... the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is not a serious possibility of persecution, or on a balance of probabilities a personal risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists. Moreover, conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the Appellant, for him to seek refuge there. [13] For brevity, I refer to the first prong as the test of safety, and the second prong as the test of reasonableness. First Prong: Mexico City meets the test of safety [14] The Appellant argued at the RPD that Mexico City did not meet the test of safety because there are killings of LGBTQ people there, his rights as a gay man would not be respected at work, the police would mistreat him and fail to protect him, people are deeply religious and would mistreat and harm him in the name of religion, and there is a lack of punishment for those that carry out hate motivated crimes. He argued that the treatment would cumulatively amount to persecution owing to its severity and repetition. [15] The RPD found that Mexico City meets the test of safety for the following reasons, in brief: * The country condition evidence shows that Mexico has a high rate of crime, including violent crime, in general. Discrimination against sexual minorities is common. However, the objective country documentation also shows that the situation for gay men has improved over the years, particularly in major cities like Mexico City, which itself has a population of over 21 million people. * While the country condition evidence is clear that homophobia is a serious problem in Mexico with extensive social roots, more than 80 cities in the country now host a gay pride parade and there is a growing LGBT movement across the country. Even so, the evidence is clear that many sectors of the country remain very conservative, particularly in small cities and rural areas. * Mexico City is a federal district entitled to enact its own laws. Mexico City has passed laws obliging authorities to combat discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A new federal law in 2014 includes sexual minority status as a protected ground. Mexico City has passed municipal laws criminalizing hate crimes based on sexual orientation. * The Economist quoted an advocacy organization for LGBT people as stating that hate crimes against gay men are "almost unheard of" in Mexico City. Mexico City maintains a community centre dedicated to its gay community. The centre hosts medical and legal clinics, including psychological assistance. The Attorney General maintains an office at the centre to assist people in reporting crimes. Gay people are allowed to marry in Mexico City. * The country condition evidence shows that Mexico's anti-discrimination laws are only partially effective. Police harassment against the LGBT community remained "high." Problems included delays or refusal to help victims, insults, and violence. Discrimination based on sexual orientation was prevalent despite a gradual increase in public tolerance as indicated by surveys. There were reports that the government did not always investigate and punish those complicit in abuses, especially outside of Mexico City. * While the Appellant may face some discrimination in Mexico City, the evidence on a balance does not support that it would rise to the level of persecution or a personal likelihood of a section 97 harm on a balance of probabilities. [16] The Appellant has argued that the RPD erred in its analysis for the following reasons, in brief: * Irreparable harm would be done to the Appellant if he returned to Mexico due to social pressure. He would have to remain silent about his true identity and maintain a low profile. He has mental scars and fears going back to Mexico. He would be forced to endure harassment and discrimination, since there is a general expectation of heteronormativity. * There is rampant crime and police are known not to help LGBT people. This is a risk not faced generally by others. He would have inadequate state protection. * The RPD ignored the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada's (the Board) Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics.12 This guideline states that gay people may have unique challenges in presenting evidence, appropriate terminology should be used, sensitive information should be protected wherever possible in the decision, stereotypes should be avoided, and the Board should be aware of the unique circumstances of each individual. * The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico states that LGBT people are barred from assembling and that they are detained due to their physical appearance or for expressing affection in public. Officials often refuse to help LGBT victims. Discrimination is prevalent. * Another NDP item states that there is discrimination against LGBT employees in the workplace. Many hide their orientation. About 43% of survey respondents reported being harassed, bullied, or discriminated against in a workplace. At the same time, 89.5% of respondents reported "total support" from their boss when they disclosed their orientation. * More LGBT people were killed in 2017 and 2018 than in previous years. While Mexico's homicide rate has increased in recent years across the board, the number of LGBT killings has increased at a rate greater than the national average. LGBT people are less likely to get access to justice. * The evidence shows that sexual minorities reported discrimination in accessing medical services in Mexico. About 50% of survey respondents reported that they had not been discriminated against. However, 18% reported that it happened occasionally, 6% of respondents reported that it was frequently, and 3% reported that it was always. Another 9.3% of gay men reported some discrimination in accessing healthcare in Mexico. * Activists report that police routinely subject LGBTI people to mistreatment while in custody. Police have not been effective in investigating or preventing hate crimes. * Persistent homophobia is promoted by the Catholic Church, which is dominant throughout Mexico. The concept of "machismo" is embedded in Mexican culture. This includes in Mexico City. * LGBT people have reported difficulty accessing spousal social security benefits in various places in Mexico. * The RPD failed to consider all of the evidence and should have awarded more weight to the evidence of negative social conditions that together amount to persecution. * Neither the RPD nor the Appellant know what actions and motivations the general public or his father might decide to act upon should he relocate to Mexico City. [17] In my independent review, I find that the RPD erred in its analysis, but I ultimately come to the same conclusion regardless. The RPD erred because it did not sufficiently analyze the risk posed by the Appellant's father, a past agent of harm who has threatened the Appellant's life. The Appellant deserves to have this risk analyzed in detail. [18] The Appellant has provided credible oral and written evidence that his father is physically and emotionally abusive. He has attacked both the Appellant and his mother in the past, including with weapons. He attempted to kill the Appellant's mother at one point several years ago, and made a threat against the Appellant's life around the same time. He is suffering from alcohol and drug abuse problems. These incidents all occurred in the Colima and Guadalajara areas. [19] The Appellant is estranged from his family except for his mother. His mother remains supportive, and has provided a letter for the Appellant's claim. The Appellant's mother left his father, and I do not have evidence that he has continued to harass or look for the Appellant or his mother since that time several years ago. I have no evidence that the Appellant would need to hide his location from his mother and no evidence that any agent of harm would or could use the Appellant's mother to gain access to the Appellant if he were to live in Mexico City. I do not have sufficient evidence that the Appellant's father remains motivated to carry out a search to find him in other locations throughout Mexico, including Mexico City. This is because of a long passage of time and because there is no evidence that any search was ever carried out after the Appellant finalized his estrangement from his family and remained in Mexico. [20] I also have insufficient evidence that the Appellant's father has any ability to find him in other locations. The Appellant's father apparently found him once in the past after he ran away from home, but this is because the Appellant was staying with a family member at an address already known throughout the family. When the Appellant moved away and lived on his own, he was not found by his father. I have no evidence that the Appellant's father has any influence in or reason to be in Mexico City, and he has no known power or connections that would facilitate a search. [21] In summation, while the Appellant's father remains a non-zero risk, the risk does not rise above the level of a mere possibility. This is because the Appellant's father lacks both the motivation and especially the means to find him in Mexico City. [22] The remainder of the analysis of the IFA in Mexico City must focus on the country conditions for gay men, since the Appellant has not identified any other specific agents of harm and instead fears that the series of incidents of discrimination that could plausibly be inflicted upon him by various societal forces and actors would cumulatively rise to the level of persecution. [23] In my opinion the RPD's analysis of this, and the Appellant's arguments against that analysis, are both complicated and confused by a tendency to conflate information about conditions in Mexico City with information about Mexico in general, including its rural areas and small towns. In my opinion the country condition evidence is clear that Mexico is a very complex and politically diverse country that includes both very socially progressive and socially conservative areas. In my analysis, I will attempt to focus on the information about conditions in Mexico City in particular. I give more weight to information about Mexico City and less weight to information about other areas in Mexico that are outside the proposed IFA. I have read all the documents but do not necessarily cite them all, including the ones that do not refer specifically to Mexico City or that have similar information repeated elsewhere. [24] According to the Appellant's own evidence, gay men in Mexico City live within a legal framework that supports their freedom and their identities.13 Same-sex relationships are legal in Mexico City. The legal age of consent is equal between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. There is a legislated prohibition against discrimination in employment related to sexual orientation. There is a constitutional prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Since 2009, the Mexico City district has considered hate crimes based on sexual orientation an aggravating circumstance. [25] The New York Times has referred to Mexico City as a "large liberal island in this socially conservative country..."14 Mexico City became the first jurisdiction in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009. Since then, thousands of same-sex couples have flocked to the city for weddings. Information in the evidence about bureaucratic hurdles to getting married appear to me to refer largely to other states in Mexico and not to the situation in Mexico City itself. The Appellant's own evidence states unequivocally that "marriage equality has arrived in Mexico City..."15 [26] The Associated Press has reported that the government of Mexico City has presented "the city's first constitution which ensures gay rights and comes into effect in 2018."16 This constitution, among other things, affords same-sex couples "the same rights as families formed by heterosexual couples..." A 2014 report notes that "in 2010, Mexico City again amended its Civil Code to allow... adoption of children by same-sex couples."17 [27] A 2013 report from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law notes that it is "possible for same-sex spouses or partners to claim the same social benefits recognitions as those of married or common law opposite-sex couples."18 The Appellant's evidence notes a "string of cases" in which same-sex couples have experienced bureaucratic obstacles in having these rights recognized in practice. The evidence suggests this is a problem rooted in "lack of appropriate training" for employees.19 It is not clear, once again, that these obstacles exist in Mexico City specifically. [28] The Appellant's new evidence on appeal notes that Mexico City's congressman is openly gay and is leading a national campaign against "conversion therapy."20 It has already been outlawed in Mexico City. [29] The Appellant's own RPD evidence notes that: ...Mexico City (Federal District) has taken the lead in enacting laws and taking measures to protect the rights of the LGBTI population. Mexico City has enacted general antidiscrimination legislation which goes beyond the federal law by prohibiting public and private sector discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as well as on the basis of sexual orientation. This law created an agency, the Council for the Prevention and Elimination of Discrimination in Mexico City (COPRED), which has the authority to take and resolve complaints of public and private sector discrimination that occur within the Federal District. The Criminal Code of the Federal District includes a hate crimes provision, under which crimes committed on the basis of the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity are considered hate crimes. In 2011, the government of the Federal District opened the Community Center on Sexual Diversity which has provided health and legal services to the LGBTI community. In 2012, the Federal District Attorney General issued a directive that provides instructions on effectively processing cases of crimes...21 [30] Court rulings in Mexico, and in particular, Mexico City, have routinely favoured LGBT rights. Pink News, an LGBT news site, reported in 2013 that Mexico's top court ruled that two popular anti-gay slurs constituted hate speech and those offended by the use of the words could sue for damages. The majority ruling held that "even though they are deeply rooted expressions in Mexican society, the fact is that the practices of the majority can't validate the violations of basic right."22 Mexican courts have consistently ruled in favour of same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption when the issues arise. [31] The Appellant has provided some evidence that police and public harassment of transgender women and gender non-conforming people spiked in some locations following the enactment of morality laws against gender non-confirmity. Police are also known to have abused their authority in detaining and mistreating LGBT people showing public displays of affection. While I take this seriously, I do not see evidence that this takes place with any regularity in Mexico City. The evidence refers to incidents in Tecate and Jalisco as example locations, neither of which is geographically, socially, or politically similar to Mexico City.23 [32] I also take very seriously the Appellant's assertion that LGBT people are barred from assembling in public and that they are frequently harassed and arbitrarily detained due to their physical appearance. This information was published by the Board's Research Directorate in 2015, based on comments made by a single representative of a gay rights activist group called Colectivo Leon Gay A.C.24 The comments are startling, but vague, and it is not clear to me whether it refers to the current situation in Mexico City or other places in the country. The Appellant's own later evidence introduced on appeal shows that Mexico City recently hosted hundreds of thousands of people for its 44th LGBT Pride March.25 The more recent, Mexico City-specific information does not suggest that authorities tried in any way to bar LGBT people from assembling and I therefore do not see sufficient evidence that the Appellant would be barred from assembling with other LGBT people in the proposed IFA location. Conversely, the Mexico City-specific evidence indicates that there is a vibrant and open gay community there that does assemble freely. I prefer the more recent, Mexico City-specific information. [33] I have some reliable evidence of violent hateful crimes against gay people, including two police officers that were arrested for murdering a gay couple in a hate crime in Mexico City, other police officers that detained a man and demanded he perform a sex act there, and several attacks on transgender women (the Appellant is not transgender) in the last 10 years. The Appellant's later evidence introduced on appeal shows that there were 78 hate-related killings of LGBT people across Mexico last year, with transgender people being most at risk.26 Other evidence notes that there were 37 murders of gay men in Mexico in 2013-201427 I do not have statistics on the number of hate-related murders of gay men in Mexico City specifically. I want to be clear that these numbers are very concerning, as is the fact that the number of hate-related murders has increased at a rate higher than that of the general murder rate in Mexico in recent years.28 The evidence is clear that gay men do face a higher risk of crime, including violent crime, than their heterosexual counterparts. However, the rate of crime needs to be considered in the context of a population of approximately 130 million people across Mexico. [34] The Appellant is also correct that the evidence supports that according to the United States Department of State, Mexican police routinely subjected LGBTI persons to mistreatment while in custody. On one hand, this information is not highly relevant to the Appellant's own risk because there is no reason to believe he would ever be in police custody and it is also not specific to the conditions in Mexico City. On the other, I recognize that this information does undermine the trustworthiness of the institution of policing in Mexico in general. [35] The Board has quoted the same representative from Colectivo Leon Gay A.C noted above as stating that "some parts of Mexico City... can be considered as safe for LGBT persons, however, in the rest of the country it would be difficult to publicly show yourself..."29 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights wrote that "there have been some improvements in Mexico City in terms of discrimination against LGBTI persons, but as stated by one civil society representative, 'Mexico City is not Mexico.'"30 The Pew Research Center recently ranked Mexico as a country with a "broad acceptance of homosexuality," noting that 61% of the people surveyed opined that homosexuality should be accepted by society. The Economist wrote in 2016 that it was hopeful that Mexico was becoming increasingly accepting of LGBT people, but stated "it will take years before Mexico becomes as tolerant as its capital..."31 [36] I completely accept that the Appellant fears going back to Mexico and that he has mental scars from his past experiences in Colima and Guadalajara. While I am highly sympathetic to this, I do not have evidence, such as psychological evidence for example, showing that he would face irreparable harm causing the proposed IFA to be unsafe (or unreasonable). [37] I do not agree with the Appellant that he would need to hide his true personality or identity as a gay man in Mexico City, since the large weight of country condition evidence supports that the city is a progressive, tolerant place with a vibrant gay community and equality under the law. [38] I do not have sufficient evidence showing that gay men in Mexico City are systematically discriminated against so severely that they are unable to find employment or accomodations. The weight of the evidence shows that while discrimination persists, it has legal modes of redress. In the Appellant's own experience, he has not lost his job in Mexico due to his orientation, and he has not reported formal discipline (though he has reported unsympathetic comments from his bosses and human resources staff when dealing with prejudiced customers). [39] The Appellant has argued that he would not receive adequate state protection. Given the facts unique to this case, the issue of state protection is a separable issue from IFA. The Appellant's need for state protection in the IFA is premised on theoretical future victimization only. I do not see the theoretical lack of future state protection as contributing to a real risk of persecution or section 97 harm in the IFA as of the time of my decision. [40] I do not understand the Appellant's argument regarding the RPD ignoring the Board's SOGIESC Guidelines. The Appellant has listed some of the stipulations of those guidelines, but has not given me any specific examples of how the RPD ignored or went against them. I see no instances of the RPD having used stereotypes, or inappropriate language, or unreasonably expecting evidence that was not available, or any other guideline issue. [41] I take the Appellant's point that the Roman Catholic Church has been steadfastly resistant to some equality measures, such as same-sex marriage and adoption, and I also take the point that the church is quite dominant and socially powerful in Mexico. However, I do not have evidence that the church would be able to remove the Appellant's democratic, civil, or social rights in Mexico City if he were to live there. [42] While I accept the Appellant's arguments that LGBT people have struggled to access healthcare in the past, I do not have information that this is the situation on the ground in Mexico City, which the evidence shows has a community centre with medical services specifically designed to address the needs of the gay community. [43] When I weigh all of the evidence as a whole and consider all of the arguments, I do not see sufficient evidence that the Appellant would face a serious possibility of persecution or a personalized likelihood of a section 97 harm if he were to travel to and live in Mexico City. The Appellant has not established that his father would have the means or the motivation to pursue and harm him in the IFA. His own evidence shows that Mexico City is a progressive space with a vibrant and large gay community. The gay activists and journalists cited in his evidence refer to Mexico City as a safe place for gay men and a "large liberal island." The legislative framework supports an environment of legal equality on democratic, social, and family issues. While I accept and take seriously that gay men face a higher than average risk of crime, including violent crime, and while I accept that gay men face a higher than average risk of discrimination, the weight of the Appellant's evidence suggests that the current risk does not rise above the level of a mere possibility. For all these reasons, I agree with the RPD's conclusion that Mexico City meets the first prong test of safety. Second prong: Mexico City meets the test of reasonableness [44] The Appellant argued at the RPD that it would be unreasonable for him to travel to and live in Mexico City because of crime, including killings, muggings, and drug trafficking. He argued that it would be very expensive to complete college there and that jobs would be poorly paid. [45] The RPD found that the Appellant is a healthy young man with a large amount of past work experience. He was able to get jobs earlier in other parts of Mexico. The RPD found that it would not be unduly harsh or unreasonable for him to move to and live in Mexico City in his personal circumstances. [46] The Appellant has argued on appeal that it is not reasonable to expect him to travel across the country to seek a safe haven in Mexico. He points out that under the Convention, a claimant is not required to exhaust all options in his home country before seeking protection in another. He has finally argued once again that the IFA is not reasonable because he would not have access to state protection. [47] In my independent review, I agree with the RPD and I do not find the Appellant's arguments persuasive. [48] First, the RPD is correct that the Appellant is a healthy young man with a large amount of job experience. He has not demonstrated that he would be unable to find a job or support himself in Mexico City. I do not have evidence that supports that he would be unreasonably poorly paid. I do not have evidence that suggests the Appellant would be unable to find reasonable accommodation. I see no reason the Appellant would need to cut off communication with his mother or any other friends in order to live there safely. [49] The Appellant would be able to travel directly to Mexico City without travelling through a conflict zone or the area of his past persecution. While the Appellant is correct that crime exists, the level of crime in Mexico City is not such that it renders it unreasonable (the city is a vibrant, functioning democracy despite the crime rate). While I am sympathetic to the argument that college would be expensive, I do not see this as an issue that renders the location unreasonable given the very high standard for this finding set out by the Federal Court. The Appellant speaks Spanish, the dominant language in the IFA, and is of Mexican heritage, and thus can be expected to integrate culturally. [50] The Appellant is correct that he need not exhaust all options in Mexico before claiming status in Canada. The Appellant was not excluded from refugee protection on that basis. This has little to do with IFA, which is a separate matter. It is well recognized that under international and Canadian law, individuals are not refugees if there is a safe place in their country of nationality and if relocating and living there would be reasonable. [51] Finally, the Appellant's arguments regarding state protection are not relevant to the issue of IFA given the circumstances unique to this case. The Appellant would not need to rely on state protection in order to live safely in the IFA, since the need for state protection is premised on a theoretical future victimization. The theoretical lack of adequate state protection cannot be said to render this IFA unreasonable. In any event, the Appellant's own evidence shows that Mexico City has effectively prosecuted people - including police officers - for hate crimes and that the city hosts a legal clinic at a community centre specifically aimed at the gay community. There is not sufficient evidence that the state protection in Mexico City would be inadequate in the Appellant's circumstances. CONCLUSION [52] While the RPD erred in several respects, its errors were minor and non-fatal. Though I am sympathetic to the Appellant's desire to live in Canada, he has not shown that Mexico City would be unsafe or unreasonable in all his personal circumstances. I agree with the RPD that he has a valid IFA in Mexico City. [53] The Appellant has not shown that he faces a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, or, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture should he return to Mexico. [54] The Appellant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed pursuant to IRPA subsection 111(1)(a). (signed) COLIN ANDERSON Colin Anderson December 20, 2022 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, at page 18, para. 1. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, at page 21, para. 16. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, at page 22, para. 20. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, at page 23, para. 23. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, at page 24, para. 26. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 2, at page 24, paras. 27-29. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at page 35. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at page 37. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at page 42. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at page 47. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at page 49. 12 Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics, issued pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the IRPA, IRB, Ottawa, revised December 17, 2021 (SOGIESC Guideline). 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 78. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 78. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 80. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 83. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 83. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 85. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4 at page 86. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at page 37. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at pages 89-90. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 92. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 93. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 95. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at page 49. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at page 50. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 107. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 120. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 100. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 101. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, Exhibit 4, at page 108. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-13072 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français