TC2-14355

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-14355 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 Date of decision November 7, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Rosemary Basa Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Alexander Fomcenco 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] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant) is a citizen of Mexico. She fears she will be seriously harmed or killed by the Jalisco Cartel New Generation (CJNG) if she were to return to Mexico. [2] Her first contact with the CJNG was on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, after she had returned home from studying in Canada. She received a phone call from the CJNG in which she was told that she needed to pay XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX pesos to stay alive, and they knew she had the money because she could afford to travel to Canada. She states that she did not think much of the call until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, when three masked individuals in military uniforms approached her as she was leaving her house, forced her back inside, and demanded the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX pesos. She begged for her life and for more time to pay. She was told that, when they came back to collect, she would need to pay them double. Afterwards, she went to the police who told her she could not file a denunciation because she did not have clear descriptions of the people who threatened her. She fled Mexico five days later, on XXXX XXXX XXXX2020, using her existing Canadian Electronic Travel Authorization. She believes she was targeted by the CJNG for extortion because of her perceived wealth. [3] The Refugee Protection Division denied the Appellant's claim for protection because it found that she has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Campeche. The Appellant appeals and asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the determination of the RPD and find that she is either a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection or, in the alternative, refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination. DECISION [4] 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 [5] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 [6] I note at the outset of this analysis that I agree with the RPD's nexus finding, which was not challenged by the Appellant. As this claim deals with criminality, it will be assessed under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [7] As noted above, the determinative issue in this appeal is the viability of an IFA in Campeche. The test for determining whether the Appellant has a viable IFA is broadly stated as: (1) is there somewhere in their country where the Appellant would not be at risk? and, if so; (2) would it be reasonable for the Appellant to relocate there?2 Determining whether there is a risk in the IFA locations involves a contextual approach, which in this case involves looking at the motivation of the agents of harm to look for the Appellant and their ability to find the Appellant in the IFA. [8] I accept the Appellant's submission that the RPD erred when it found that the CJNG is not active in Campeche,3 as this finding ignores evidence in the Board's National Documentation Package (NDP) which expressly states the opposite.4 However, I note that, despite this erroneous finding, the RPD went on to find that, as a large criminal organization, the CJNG has the means to find a person of interest in Campeche.5 In this regard, I agree with the RPD. [9] I also agree with the RPD that, on the particular facts of this case, the Appellant has failed to establish that she would be considered a person of interest to the CJNG such that they would be motivated to track her if she were to move to Campeche. [10] Country condition evidence indicates that criminal groups are motivated to track certain individuals because they steal or lose money; or due to personal rivalries; or for political incentives/reasons; or due to personal vengeance, perceived betrayal, public exposition of relationships with public officials, politicians or investments; or cooperation with authorities as informants or collaborative witnesses.6 Other motivators include a large debt; or a personal vendetta; or refusing to join a cartel; or if the organization thinks the person has exposed them.7 Common targets include failed recruits, people working for state authorities, journalists, and indigenous communities.8 [11] The Appellant argues that the CJNG views her to be in debt to them for a large sum of money because she owed them two payments of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX pesos as of XXXX 2020, and much more today when multiplying the number of months that the Appellant has been avoiding the cartel. [12] I reject this argument. There is insufficient evidence that the CJNG considers the Appellant to be a person of interest such that they will invest time and energy to search out the Appellant in another state to obtain an extortion fee from her. While I appreciate that XXXX XXXX pesos is not an insignificant amount of money for the average Mexican, including for the Appellant who was making forty thousand pesos per month in Mexico, I find that there is no actual evidence before me which would establish that the CJNG - which is considered to be the most powerful cartel in Mexico - perceives the Appellant as owing them a large or significant debt. [13] Nor is there any other evidence which could establish that the failed extortion of the Appellant - which is a matter of routine business for a criminal organization like the CJNG - escalated into a personal feud or vendetta such that the Appellant is considered to be a person of interest to the CJNG. The only evidence before me is: (i) the two demands made of the Appellant within a very short timeframe; (ii) evidence from the Appellant's neighbour that people have been watching the Appellant's house in her hometown; and (iii) evidence that the Appellant's parents and siblings moved to their other house out of fear. While I acknowledge that this evidence establishes that the CJNG is likely interested in pursuing the Appellant in her hometown, I find that it does not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the CJNG is motivated to pursue the Appellant outside of her hometown. In coming to this conclusion, I note that the Appellant's father provided a letter of support, dated XXXX XXXX, 2022, wherein he confirms that they moved due to the threats received by the Appellant, but the father does not say that he or his remaining family members have been threatened since they moved homes, and the Appellant has not adduced any other evidence to this effect. [14] Finally, I find that the Appellant does not have a profile that the CJNG is likely to pursue. She is not a person of authority or influence who could interfere with the CJNG's business interest, and she did not file a police complaint naming the CJNG. [15] Accordingly, I find that the Appellant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the CJNG would consider her to be a person of interest such that they would be motivated to pursue her for the failed extortion in Campeche. Campeche is reasonable in the Appellant's personal circumstances [16] The Appellant argues that Campeche is an unreasonable IFA for the Appellant because she is a single woman and because the documentary evidence indicates that Mexico is a dangerous country, especially for women. She points to evidence of high rates of femicide and gender-related violence, in addition to the widespread insecurity in Mexico. [17] I reject this argument. As noted by the RPD, it is not sufficient for the Appellant to point to general human rights problems in a country without providing evidence as to how those problems have impacted or will impact her.9 Other than pointing to her gender, the Appellant has not explained how her personal circumstances make her vulnerable to gender-based violence in Campeche. Accordingly, I find that the Appellant has not established that she faces a risk to her life, or a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, on a balance of probabilities. [18] Further, I agree with the RPD's assessment that Campeche is a reasonable IFA in the Appellant's circumstances. The Appellant has demonstrated an ability to travel, live, and work as a single woman in Canada, and I see no impediments to the Appellant in travelling to, living, or working in Campeche. When viewed together with country evidence that Campeche is one of the most peaceful places in Mexico, I find that it is reasonable for the Appellant to relocate there. CONCLUSION [19] 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) Rosemary Basa Rosemary Basa November 7, 2022 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145. 2 Thirunavukkarasu v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993, 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589; M.C.I. v. Ranganathan (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000, 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons, para 15. 4 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP for Mexico (September 29, 2022), item 7.8, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR) MEX200732.E, The crime situation in Mérida, Mexico City, Campeche, and Cabo San Lucas; organized crime and cartel groups active in these cities (as well as Yucatán state, State of Campeche, and Baja California Sur); the ability and motivation of organized ..., September 8, 2021, p. 9. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons, para 17. 6 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP for Mexico (September 29, 2022), item 7.8, IRB, RIR MEX200732.E, September 8, 2021, p. 11. 7 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP for Mexico (September 29, 2022), item 7.15, IRB, RIR MEX106302.E, August 15, 2019, pp. 10-11. 8 Ibid., item 7.15; and item 7.18, IRB, RIR MEX200313.E, Crime and criminality, including organized crime, alliances between criminal groups and their areas of control; groups targeted by cartels; state response; protection available to victims, including witness protection (2018-September 2020), September 21, 2020. 9 Sharawi v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1794-18), Boswell, January 18, 2019, 2019 FC 74, at para 31. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-14355 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