MB9-29876

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-29876 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 30, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Desiree Pachkowski Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Mabel E. Fraser Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss this appeal. [2] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant) is a citizen of Mexico. [3] The Appellant worked as a campaign organizer with the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). She claims that armed men abducted her after a campaign event and threatened to harm her if she continued to support the campaign. She started receiving threatening phone calls. One of her neighbours was abducted by armed men. Someone broke into her home and left her threatening notes. She left the country after this incident. [4] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the Appellant lacked credibility because she was not consistent about the details of her abduction and could not identify her alleged abductors. The RPD found that the Appellant had an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Yucatan or Campeche. [5] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its findings. The Appellant submits that she was consistent about the details of her abduction and that memory is subjective. The Appellant argues that she could not identify her captors because she was blindfolded. She argues that the IFA is not safe or reasonable. [6] After an independent review of the record, I find that the RPD's decision is correct. The Appellant lacks credibility because of the reasons identified by the RPD. The Appellant also has a viable IFA in Yucatan or Campeche. DECISION [7] 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. NEW EVIDENCE AND ORAL HEARING [8] The Appellant did not request an oral hearing. I may hold a hearing if there is new evidence that raises a serious issue about the Appellant's credibility, which is central to the claim, and if accepted would justify allowing or rejecting the claim. Since there is no new evidence on the record, I did not hold an oral hearing. ANALYSIS [9] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 [10] Sworn testimony is presumed to be true unless there are reasons to doubt its truthfulness. These reasons may include contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities.2 Credibility [11] The RPD decided that the Appellant was not credible because of several inconsistencies and omissions on the record. After an independent review, I find that the RPD was correct for the following reasons. The Appellant's testimony about her captors was vague, general and inconsistent [12] The Appellant's Counsel argues that it is possible for the Appellant to fear her agents of persecution without being able to identify them. Counsel submits that the Appellant only knew they were from an opposing political party. Counsel submits that the Appellant could not provide details about the identity of her captors because she was blindfolded when she was abducted. [13] I agree that there are cases where it may not be possible to know the exact identity of a claimant's agents of persecution. However, this was not the only problem with the Appellant's testimony about her alleged captors. The Appellant's testimony was so vague and general that it undermines her credibility. [14] The Appellant could only describe her captors as delinquents. She did not know how many there were. She did not describe them physically. [15] Contrary to Counsel's submissions, the Appellant also testified that the delinquents worked for all the political parties.3 When pressed for more details, the Appellant said that the delinquents worked for the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).4 [16] The Appellant's testimony is vague, contradictory and confusing because she claims that she was targeted because she worked for the PRI. She claims that these people did not want her to continue supporting a PRI candidate.5 The Appellant effectively testified that she was targeted by individuals working for the same party that she was. She later testified that her captors did not say for whom they were working.6 [17] The Appellant also was not blindfolded the entire time that she was with her captors. She claims that she saw three men before she was blindfolded.7 She did not describe these men in her testimony. [18] I would expect the Appellant to provide more details about her captors in these circumstances. I would also expect her to provide internally consistent details about her agents of persecution and who they worked for even if she could not specifically identify any individuals. [19] The RPD was correct to find that the Appellant's vague testimony about her agents of persecution undermines her credibility and did not take place as alleged. The Appellant was inconsistent about the number of people who kidnapped her [20] The Appellant's Counsel argues that the Appellant was consistent regarding the number of individuals who abducted her. Counsel submits that the Appellant testified that there were six men inside the truck and wrote in her Basic of Claim (BOC) narrative that three men got out of the truck. Counsel submits that this is not inconsistent because it is not clear when the Appellant was blindfolded, and she could have been blindfolded before she got in the truck. Counsel reiterates that the Appellant clarified during her testimony that she could have heard three to six men inside the truck. Counsel submits that the Appellant was simply giving her perspective the way she understood it. Counsel submits that memory is subjective and can become distorted with time. [21] Counsel argues that the RPD erred when it ignored scientific evidence demonstrating that perception and the way a question is set out have an influence on the answer. Counsel does not point to any specific scientific evidence. Counsel argues that studies show that "credibility should not be the 'pivot' upon which the decision turns".8 Counsel argues that the RPD did not apply the presumption of truthfulness and incorrectly turned the hearing into a memory test. [22] The RPD did not err. The RPD was correct to compare the Appellant's testimony with what she wrote in her BOC. Internal inconsistencies between a claimant's testimony and documentary evidence may rebut the presumption of truthfulness. The RPD asked the Appellant how many men were there when she was kidnapped. She said six.9 The Appellant's BOC narrative mentions three men.10 The RPD was correct to note that "three or six men are very different, more so when they are all allegedly seated on board a RAM truck."11 This detail is material because the number of captors changes the severity of the kidnapping. [23] While I recognize that the Appellant's recollection is from her own perspective, like the RPD, I would expect that her perspective would be the same while writing the details in her narrative and while testifying about this event. [24] The Appellant's testimony is inconsistent with her narrative about a material detail of her claim. The RPD was correct to find that this undermines the Appellant's credibility. The RPD did not ignore objective documentary evidence [25] The Appellant's Counsel argues that the RPD ignored the objective documentary evidence that corroborates the Appellant's claim that political parties hire killers and delinquents to do bad things. Counsel did not point to any items in the National Documentation Package (NDP) but states that it is in almost every document. Counsel argues that the RPD erred by discarding the NDP documents in their totality. [26] The RPD did not err. The RPD did not contest the fact that political parties may hire people to do bad things. Its credibility concerns are rooted in the Appellant's vague and inconsistent evidence and testimony. This is not an error. [27] I accept that there is political corruption in Mexico.12 However, the fact that there is corruption in Mexico does not establish that the Appellant was kidnapped and targeted as she described, on a balance of probabilities. The objective documentary evidence does not overcome the credibility problems on the record. The RPD was correct to look for evidence of threats [28] The Appellant's Counsel argues that the RPD erred when it expected the Appellant to provide evidence of the threats she received. Counsel submits that the absence of evidence does not mean that the event did not happen. [29] The RPD was correct to look for documentary evidence to corroborate the Appellant's claim that she was threatened by the delinquents. [30] Refugee claimants are expected to provide documentary evidence of their claims. They are owed the presumption of truthfulness. There are situations where it may not be possible for claimants to provide documentation. However, the RPD may look to a claimant's documentary evidence when they have credibility concerns. [31] The RPD doubted the Appellant's credibility because of her inconsistent and vague testimony. The RPD also noted that the Appellant omitted key details from her narrative about the threats.13 Since the Appellant failed to mention the threats in her narrative, the RPD was correct to look to the Appellant's documentary evidence to corroborate her claim that she received threats. The RPD was correct to draw a negative credibility inference because she omitted the threats from her BOC and did not have any documentary evidence of the them. An IFA is available to the Appellant regardless of the credibility concerns [32] The RPD found that the Appellant had an IFA in Campeche or Yucatan, even if it had believed her story. I agree with the RPD for the following reasons. [33] There are two parts of the legal test for assessing an IFA.14 [34] First, I must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted, and/or no danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA locations. [35] Second, the conditions in the IFAs must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the Appellant to seek refuge there. [36] Once an IFA has been identified, the Appellant is responsible for demonstrating that the IFA is unsafe or unreasonable. The IFAs are safe [37] The Appellant's Counsel has not challenged any of the RPD's findings related to the first part of the IFA test. I reviewed the RPD's analysis and find it without error. These findings are summarized as follows. [38] The RPD found several omissions in the Appellant's documentary evidence. The Appellant testified that her family was threatened by her agents of persecution. She testified that her family moved to escape her agents of persecution. Her narrative did not mention these details. Her testimony about where her brother-in-law lives also contradicted her written evidence. [39] The RPD noted that the Appellant submitted an amended BOC narrative shortly before her hearing but did not include these details. The RPD drew a general negative credibility inference. The RPD also did not believe that the Appellant's family moved because of her agents of persecution. [40] The RPD considered this credibility finding in the first part of its IFA analysis. Since the Appellant did not credibly establish that her family was threatened or pursued by her agents of persecution, the RPD did not find that this impacted the safety of the IFA. [41] The RPD also noted that Appellant had a small role with the PRI during her regional election. She was involved with the party for a month. Although the Appellant testified that the delinquents would pursue her for revenge because she went to the authorities, the RPD noted that the Appellant did not make a complaint to police. In these circumstances the RPD did not find it plausible that the delinquents would still want to pursue the Appellant in the suggested IFAs. [42] The RPD did not accept the Appellant's testimony that the delinquents would use databases to find her as they had found her family. The RPD relied on its finding that the delinquents did not threaten or pursue the Appellant's family to support this finding. The RPD found that the Appellant did not satisfy her burden to establish that the delinquents would use databases to find her on a balance of probabilities. [43] These uncontested findings are without error. I adopt them as my own. [44] After considering the evidence before me, I do not find that the Appellant's alleged agents of persecution have the means and motivation to locate her in Campeche or Yucatan. [45] I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted, and/or no danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFAs. The IFAs are reasonable [46] Relocation will always involve some amount of hardship. However, the threshold to find an IFA unreasonable is high. The Appellant must provide actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions which would jeopardize their life and safety.15 After considering the particular facts of the Appellant's case, I find that the proposed IFAs are reasonable for the following reasons. [47] The Appellant's Counsel argues that the IFAs are unreasonable because the Appellant is a single female without support. [48] The Appellant did not mention this during her hearing. She stated that she would be afraid to find housing and that she would be afraid that her agents of persecution would find her. She did not mention her gender, marital status, or family support. This argument was not presented to the RPD during Counsel's submissions. It is established in law that an appeal is "not a second chance to answer weaknesses identified by the RPD."16 [49] Even if I consider this argument, I do not find evidence that the Appellant has a particular set of circumstances that would render the IFAs unreasonable. [50] I accept that there is a high rate of violence against women in Mexico. However, the Appellant has not advanced any evidence of any other discrimination or persecution that she has faced because of her gender. I also note that the IFA locations selected by the RPD are relatively high on the Peace Index for Mexico.17 This indicates that there is less crime and violence in these regions, making them some of the safest areas to live in Mexico. I also note that despite incidents of femicide, men are eight times more likely than women to be killed in Mexico, largely due to violence associated to the cartels.18 The objective evidence also establishes males are significantly more likely to be victims of violence in Mexico.19 [51] Although the Appellant's family does not live in the IFA locations, there is no evidence on the record to demonstrate that they would not be able to support her. The Appellant's testimony that she speaks with her family every day indicates that she would have at least some form of emotional support from her family. She also testified that she previously lived with her family in different locations. [52] The Appellant has fourteen years of education, including five years of post-secondary studies.20 Although she testified that she was unable to graduate from her odontology program because she left Mexico, documents on the record indicate that she completed a significant amount of her studies.21 There is also no information on the record to indicate that the Appellant could not complete her studies in the IFA locations. I also note that although the Appellant is at the beginning of her career, she has work experience in her field of study.22 The Appellant's education and work experience weigh favourably in my assessment of the reasonableness of the IFA locations. [53] While I acknowledge that it would be difficult to relocate to a city where the Appellant would not have a social or professional network, I do not find that this rises to the level of being unduly harsh. When I consider the totality of the Appellant's personal circumstances, I do not find that the arguments presented with her appeal rise to the level required to render the IFA unreasonable. [54] The RPD did not accept the Appellant's argument that she would not be able to relocate because she would not have access to Medicare. The RPD noted that the objective documentary evidence does not show any special difficulties that people relocating in Mexico might face. The Appellant did not contest this finding. I agree with the RPD, noting that the objective documentary evidence indicates that there is a program in place to offer repatriated Mexicans services including health care.23 [55] Finally, I note that the Appellant speaks Spanish and identifies as Catholic, the predominant language and religion in Mexico.24 This weighs favourably in my analysis. [56] I have considered any potential cumulative effect of the Appellant's particular circumstances. I find that any cumulative effects are mitigated by the Appellant's work experience, education, and language capacity. [57] After considering the evidence before me, I find that an IFA in Campeche or Yucatan would be reasonable for the Appellant in all the circumstances. State protection is not determinative [58] The Appellant's Counsel argues that the Appellant cannot obtain state protection in Mexico because of the police corruption. [59] The determinative factors in the Appellant's case are credibility and IFA. Since state protection is not a determinative factor in the Appellant's case, I did not address this argument. CONCLUSION [60] The RPD was correct to find that the Appellant was not credible. The RPD was also correct to find that the Appellant had an IFA in Campeche or Yucatan. [61] 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) Desiree Pachkowski Desiree Pachkowski November 30, 2020 Date 1Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 2 Maldonado v. Canada (MEI) (1994), 23 Imm LR (2d) 220. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing before the RPD on October 29, 2019, at 00:08:19. 4 Ibid, at 00:09:07. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC narrative, at p.11 at paras. 2 and 4. 6 Supra, endnote 3, at 00:44:16. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC narrative, at p.11 at para. 4. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 7 at para. 49. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing before the RPD on October 29, 2019, at 00:41:45. 10 Ibid, BOC narrative, at p.11 at para. 4. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision at p.6 at para.19. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, 30 August 2019, at tab 9.5: ?Corruption that Kills: Why Mexico Needs An International Mechanism To Combat Impunity. Open Society Foundations. Open Society Justice Initiative. 1 May 2018. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at pp. 6 - 7 at paras. 22 - 28. 14 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No 1172, [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A); and, Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] F.C.J. No. 1256, [1992] 1 F.C. 706, 140 N.R. 138 (F.C.A). 15 Singh v. M.C.I. IMM-826-13, Noël, September 26, 2013, 2013 FC 988 (CanLII), at para. 40. 16 Eshetie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1036 (CanLII), at para. 33. 17 Supra, endnote 12, at tab 1.5: ?Mexico Peace Index 2019. Institute for Economics and Peace. April 2019. Note : although the latest NDP package contains an updated version of this document, the Yucatan and Campeche remain the top two most peaceful states in Mexico. 18 Ibid, at tab 7.9: Organized Crime and Violence in Mexico. Analysis Through 2018. University of San Diego. Justice in Mexico Project. Laura Calderón et al. April 2019. 19 Ibid, at pg. 30. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Schedule A form at p. 65. 21 Ibid, University of Veracruz certificate, at pp. 93 - 94. 22 Supra, endnote 20. 23 Supra, endnote 12, at tab 2.4: ?National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21: Mexico. United Nations. Human Rights Council. 23 August 2018. A/HRC/WG.6/31/MEX/1, at p. 11 at para. 68. 24 Ibid, at tab 1.2: ?Mexico. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 21 August 2019, at p. 3. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-29876 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