TB8-25670

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-25670 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 September 11, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Desiree Pachkowski Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Marcela D Gonzalez-Rodriguez 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. [2] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant) is citizen of Mexico. [3] The Appellant was a XXXX XXXX in Veracruz city. In January 2016, he began to receive extortion demands from members of Los Zetas. He was able to pay the requested sum until early 2017, when the organized crime group (OCG) Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG) took over Los Zetas' territory and demanded a higher fee. Members of the CJNQ assaulted the Appellant because he was unable to pay this fee. [4] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the Appellant had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Puebla City, Hermosillo, Cancun, La Paz, Mexico City. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred when it found that he would be safe from his agents of persecution in these cities. The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred when it did not consider subsection 108(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Appellant also argues that the RPD breached procedural fairness when it did not allow him to adjourn his hearing to a later date. [5] The determinative issue in this case is IFA. I find that the Appellant has a safe and reasonable IFA in Puebla City. I do not find that subsection 108(4) applies to the Appellant's case. I do not find any breach of procedural fairness. DECISION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither Convention refugees nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellant is accepted/rejected [7] According to the law,1 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to bring to the RPD before the decision. [8] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.2 [9] The Appellant was self-represented and did not have access to the file compiled by his previous Counsel who passed away. In these circumstances, I find that the Appellant could not have reasonably been expected to provide the documents submitted as new evidence. All the new evidence satisfies the 110(4) criteria for new evidence. [10] However, some of the new evidence is inadmissible because it is not relevant, or capable of proving or disproving a fact that is relevant to the Appellant's claim. My reasons are as follows. Admissible new evidence [11] The following new evidence is admissible for the following reasons. Medical Report from the Red Cross of Mexico (05 May 2017) [12] This medical report states that the Appellant was attacked in Veracruz by a stranger on May 5, 2017. The report details the extent of the Appellant's injuries and the treatment he received. Employment Letter (11 April 2016) [13] Composed by a transportation union, this letter confirms that the Appellant was a XXXX XXXX. Affidavit of Translation (22 November 2018) [14] As the two documents described above were translated from Spanish to English, this Affidavit confirms the translator's proficiency in translation. [15] These three documents appear credible. They are relevant to the Appellant's claim, as they verify that he was attacked and that he worked as a XXXX XXXX. They are new. These documents are admitted as new evidence. For the purposes of my analysis, I accept that this new evidence establishes that the Appellant was a XXXX XXXX and was assaulted in 2017. Newspaper articles [16] The Appellant's Counsel submitted three newspaper articles3 with information pertaining to Los Zetas and their activities and territory in Mexico. [17] These newspaper articles appear credible. They are relevant because they detail the activities and potential reach of one of the Appellant's alleged agents of persecution. The articles are new. These documents are admitted as new evidence and will contribute to my analysis of the viability of the suggested IFA. Inadmissible new evidence Persuasive decision MA4-04467 [18] The Appellant's Counsel submits RPD decision MA4-04467 as new evidence. Although the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB) previously designated this decision as Persuasive Decision, it is no longer included in the IRB's list of Persuasive Decisions.4 I consider this document new evidence, as it is no longer listed in a public forum such as the IRB website or CanlII. [19] The claimants in MA4-04467 were Colombian citizens. Their agents of persecution were the members Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP), a Colombian guerilla group. The Appellant's Counsel argues that this decision is relevant because in MA4-004667, the RPD determined that the claimants did not have an IFA or state protection. The Appellant's Counsel submits that "[w]hile the decision is no longer persuasive regarding 2017, its [sic] absolutely regarding 2005 and 2006."5 Counsel has not elaborated any further. This submission does not appear related to the Appellant's case. The Appellant's interactions with OCGs began in 2016. The Appellant does not allege that he suffered any persecution, violence, or threats in 2005 or 2006. [20] In any case, I do not find that this decision is relevant to the Appellant's case. The claimants in decision MA4-04467 were victimized by an entirely different criminal organization, in a different country, more than ten years prior to the Appellant's interactions with Los Zetas or CJNG. While I recognize that there may be some similarities between the two cases, the facts are specific to the claimants' situation in Colombia. Counsel has not identified any specific paragraphs of MA4-04467 for consideration. [21] Like the RPD, I recognize that each case must turn on its own specific facts, and that in some cases an IFA may not be safe or reasonable. This is established in law beyond this former persuasive decision. As the decision is not capable of proving or disproving a fact that is relevant to the Appellant's claim, it is inadmissible as new evidence. Newspaper articles related to Hermosillo and Cancun [22] The RPD found an IFA for the Appellant in Hermosillo, Cancun, La Paz, Mexico City, and Puebla City. My analysis will focus on Puebla City as a potential IFA. [23] The Appellant's Counsel submitted three documents with information exclusively referring to Cancun and Hermosillo.6 [24] As I will not consider Cancun or Hermosillo as potential IFA locations, I do not find these articles relevant to my analysis. These articles do not contain information about Los Zetas' or CJNG's presence in Puebla City, or any other relevant information related to the availability of an IFA. Since these articles are not relevant, they are inadmissible as new evidence. ORAL HEARING [25] The Appellant requests an oral hearing. I may hold a hearing if the Appellant submits new evidence that raises a serious issue about his credibility, which is central to the claim, and would require further testimony. In my view, the new evidence does not fit these criteria. I therefore do not have jurisdiction to hold an oral hearing. I deny the Appellant's request for any oral hearing. ANALYSIS [26] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.7 [27] The Appellant's Counsel submits a number of arguments on appeal related to the RPD's assessment of the Appellant's credibility. However, the RPD did not identify credibility as a determinative issue in the case. The RPD focussed on IFA as the determinative issue in the case. The RPD did not comment on the Appellant's credibility. In my view, IFA continues to be the determinative issue in this case before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). As such, I have not engaged with these arguments in my decision. No breach of procedural fairness or violation of natural justice [28] The Appellant retained Ms. Geraldine Macdonald as Counsel to represent him in his proceedings before the RPD. Unfortunately, Ms. Macdonald passed away in XXXX 2018. [29] The Appellant's hearing took place on September 13, 2018, approximately five months after the death of his first lawyer. During the hearing, the Appellant explained that he had been waiting to hear from Legal Aid Ontario to assign him a new lawyer. The Appellant did not attempt to obtain new Counsel until several days before his hearing. At this time, he reached out to a friend who connected him with Ms. Marcela Gonzalez, a paralegal who previously worked as Ms. Macdonald's assistant. [30] The Appellant attended his hearing with Ms. Gonzalez. At the beginning of the hearing, she explained that she was still in the process of locating the Appellant's file. The Appellant and Ms. Gonzalez requested an adjournment. [31] The RPD Member questioned the Appellant regarding his actions following the death of his previous counsel. After taking a break to consider the Appellant's request for an adjournment, the Member thoroughly explained why she decided to deny the Appellant's request.8 [32] The Appellant's Counsel argues that the RPD erred when it did not allow the Appellant to adjourn the hearing to a later date. I disagree for the following reasons. [33] There is no absolute right to counsel, and the opportunity to retain counsel is not unlimited.9 As noted by the RPD, the Appellant did not act diligently.10 He was unable to explain why he did not attempt to find new counsel at an earlier time. His response that he was waiting for to hear from Legal Aid Ontario is unsatisfactory, especially when I consider that he did not attempt to rectify the situation until immediately before his hearing, five months after his lawyer's death. [34] Furthermore, I note that the RPD Rules indicate that an application to change the date or time of a proceeding must be made without delay, no later than three working days before the hearing.11 The Appellant stated that he contacted Ms. Gonzalez in the days prior to his hearing.12 Ms. Gonzalez stated that she contacted a lawyer to obtain the Appellant's file. The lawyer informed her that she would not be able to meet until after the Appellant's hearing.13 I note that both the Appellant and Ms. Gonzalez did not attempt to contact the IRB to reschedule a hearing after learning this information. Rather, they waited to attend the Appellant's hearing to request an adjournment. Therefore, the Appellant did not comply with the RPD Rules to apply to change the date of his hearing. [35] I have considered that the rules also state that exceptions may be made for medical reasons and other emergencies. As Ms. Macdonald passed away five months prior to the hearing, and the Appellant did not make any attempt to inform the IRB, I do not find that this exception applies in the Appellant's case. [36] The RPD Member considered the policy before making her decision to deny an adjournment and clearly articulated why she did so.14 [37] Following the RPD's decision, Ms. Gonzalez stated that she would act as the Appellant's Counsel and was sworn in. However, shortly thereafter, Ms. Gonzalez announced that she would leave the hearing because she believed that the Member's decision to deny an adjournment was unfair. The RPD recommended that they take a break for Ms. Gonzalez to deliberate this decision with the Appellant.15 This indicates that the RPD understood the importance of the Appellant's right to Counsel, and wanted to ensure that the Appellant and Ms. Gonzalez were certain that they wished to proceed in this manner. In my view, this demonstrates that the RPD was committed to conducting a fair hearing. Ms. Gonzalez ultimately decided to leave the hearing. As a result, the Appellant was left at the hearing to represent himself. [38] The RPD Member recognized that the Appellant was self-represented and took extra time to clearly explain the proceedings of the hearing to him. She stated that if the Appellant could pose any questions necessary during the hearing.16 There was an interpreter present at the hearing, whom the Appellant could understand. The Appellant confirmed that the only document missing from his file was a more detailed version of his Basis of Claim (BOC) Narrative.17 [39] The RPD Member stated that, if necessary, she would consider a late disclosure of evidence following the hearing, to ensure that the procedure was fair.18 I note that the Appellant did not submit any documents to the RPD after his hearing. The RPD Member provided the Appellant with sufficient time to answer all her questions and present his case. The RPD allowed the Appellant to have a break to prepare any further submissions he may have at the end of the hearing. The RPD did not make any negative credibility findings based on the Appellant's BOC narrative. [40] The RPD correctly considered the Appellant's circumstances within the context of the RPD Rules. The RPD conducted a fair hearing. I do not find any violation of procedural fairness or natural justice. [41] In any case, I can remedy any potential breach of procedural fairness on appeal. The RPD found that IFA was the determinative issue in the Appellant's case. The Appellant is now represented by Counsel. The Appellant and his Counsel have had the opportunity to make submissions responding to the RPD's IFA determination on appeal. I have considered these submissions in my analysis. IFA legal test [42] There are two parts of the legal test for assessing an IFA.19 [43] For the first part of the test, 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. [44] In the second part of the IFA test, conditions in that part of the country must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the Appellant to seek refuge there. [45] Once an IFA has been identified, the Appellant is responsible for demonstrating that the IFA is unsafe or unreasonable. [46] An IFA location must be reasonable. Relocation will always be difficult. However, the threshold to determine that an IFA is unreasonable is very high. To be considered unreasonable, the IFA must have conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the Appellants20. The Appellants are responsible for providing "actual and concrete evidence of such conditions"21. The Appellants' personal circumstances are a key part of this analysis.22 The IFA is safe [47] At the beginning of the Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant's Counsel includes a question about whether the RPD erred in making an illusive conclusion without reviewing any pertinent information regarding the harmful activities of Los Zetas and CJNG. The Appellant's Counsel later argues that the IFA cities suggested by the RPD are dominated by the Zetas Cartel. The remainder of the Memorandum does not address this question or provide any further arguments. [48] I note that the Appellant's BOC narrative states that Los Zetas initially targeted him for extortion. He was able to pay the fees. Eventually, CJNG took over his hometown and raised the extortion rate. Members of the CJNG assaulted the Appellant when he could not afford to pay the new rate. According to the Appellant's BOC narrative and testimony,23 he was targeted by the CJNG, rather than Los Zetas, when the confrontation escalated to violence. [49] That said, my IFA analysis will consider both Los Zetas and CJNG. I find that the Appellant will be safe in the IFA location from either group for the following reasons. The RPD's uncontested findings are correct [50] The RPD made several detailed and well-reasoned findings based on the Appellant's testimony and the information on the record. These findings include: a. The Appellant testified that his wife and children safely relocated from Veracruz to Puebla City.24 The RPD noted that the Appellant's family was not living in hiding and had not had any encounters with either OCG seeking the Appellant. The RPD found that this established, on a balance of probabilities, that the OGCs do not have the motivation to seek out the Appellant in a different city. b. The Appellant retained his home in Veracruz and rents it to tenants. His mother-in-law manages this property. The Appellant testified that neither his tenants nor mother-in-law had any problems or encounters with either OCG in his former home. Since the OCGs did not appear to have any motivation to look for the Appellant at his house in Veracruz, the RPD concluded that they would not have the motivation to search for him in the IFA cities. c. Although the Appellant testified that some of his former XXXX XXXX colleagues had disappeared from Veracruz, the RPD did not find that this established that an IFA would be unsafe for the Appellant. Rather, the RPD established that the Appellant would be at risk if he continued to work as a XXXX XXXX in Veracruz. d. The Appellant testified that he was well-known in Mexico because he is a good worker. However, he admitted that he would not be known in another city. The RPD found that this did not establish that the Appellant had a profile that would bring him to the attention of any OCGs in a new city. e. The Appellant stated that there was a criminal situation in all of Mexico. The RPD found that this constituted a generalized risk, as the Appellant does not have any particular characteristics that would result in him being targeted by organized crime. [51] The Appellant's Counsel has not made any arguments addressing these findings. I have reviewed these findings and find no error in the RPD's analysis. [52] Although uncontested, in my independent review I find that an additional uncontested finding requires clarity. Specifically, the Appellant testified that all OCGs in Mexico are well-connected. He testified that he would be investigated by local OCGs if he moved somewhere new. The RPD found this statement speculative and not rooted in evidence. I disagree in part. I find that there is evidence that OCGs may rely on their connections to track people.25 That said, there is no evidence to suggest that the Appellant's agents of persecution have the motivation to use any of their connections to track the Appellant. In this sense, the RPD was correct to conclude that the Appellant's statement is speculative. This error is not fatal to the decision. No evidence to establish that OCGs are motivated to pursue the Appellant Documentary evidence [53] I have considered the new evidence presented on appeal. [54] One newspaper article describes the brutal tactics of Los Zetas, and states that they are the most dangerous gang in Mexico.26 However, this article was published in 2009. [55] The newspaper article Have the Zetas Replaced the Sinaloa as Mexico's Most Powerful Cartel? was published in 2012. At this time, Los Zetas held a significant amount of territory in Mexico.27 However, this article also states that the physical presence of a cartel does not mean that they exert authority over the local government, and spreading too thin across the country could actually be a detriment to the group's overall influence28. The article concludes that the Sinaloa Cartel appeared to have a greater influence in Mexico than Los Zetas at the time that it was written. [56] The information presented in these articles is outdated and conflicts with the current objective documentary evidence, which states that Los Zetas have diminished in power and reach in Mexico.29 I prefer the more current evidence. Even if Los Zetas were still as powerful as they were in 2009, I do not find that this article establishes that Los Zetas have the means or motivation to track the Appellant. [57] A third newspaper article confirms that the CJNG has established itself as a large and powerful OCG, particularly in Guerrero, Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Chihuahua, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas and Aguas Calientes.30 I accept that CJNG is a large OCG that has committed atrocious crimes. However, I do not find that this establishes that the organization is motivated to track and locate the Appellant in an IFA. Even if the group has connections in Puebla City, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the Appellant would be known or visible to the representatives of the CNJG in Puebla City. In fact, the Appellant admitted that people in another city would not know where he had worked.31 [58] Finally, I note that the most current map depicting the geographic presence and control of different OGCs in Mexico demonstrates that both the Tamaulipas and Tierra Caliente OGCs may be influential in Puebla State.32 However, this map does not specify which sub-groups have a presence in Puebla State. Other sources state that Los Zetas operate primarily in Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila.33 [59] Even if factions of CJNG or Los Zetas maintain a presence or have allies in Puebla City, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the OCGs would use these connections to locate the Appellant, on a balance of probabilities. When I weigh the potential that the OCGs have a presence in Puebla City against the fact that the Appellant's family is able to safely reside in this city, and the tenants of his former house in Veracruz have not had any encounters with either OCG, I do not find that Los Zetas or CNJG have the means or motivation to locate him in Puebla City, on a balance of probabilities. [60] I find that the Appellant has not satisfied his burden of establishing that either Los Zetas or CNJG have the means or motivation to locate him in Puebla city, on a balance of probabilities. I am therefore 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 Puebla City. Consequently, I find that the Appellant has a safe IFA in Puebla City. The IFA is reasonable [61] The Appellant's Counsel has not advanced any arguments regarding the RPD's analysis and conclusion that Puebla City would be a reasonable IFA in all of the circumstances.34 I have reviewed the RPD's findings and find that they are correct and agree with this conclusion. As an individual with diverse work experience35 and a member of the majority ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups in Mexico,36 the Appellant's circumstances do not render an IFA in Puebla City unreasonable. [62] I find that an IFA in Puebla is reasonable for the Appellant in all the circumstances. Subsection 108(4) is not applicable to the Appellant's case [63] The Appellant's Counsel submits that the RPD ought to have considered and applied subsection 108(4) of the IRPA to the Appellant's case. Section 108 of the IRPA provides five reasons why a claim for refugee protection should be rejected for cessation. Paragraph 108(1)(e) states that a claim for refugee protection shall be rejected if the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist. Subsection 108(4) provides an exception to this rule: when a person establishes that there are compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution, torture, punishment, or treatment for refusing to avail themselves of the protection of the country which they left. In short, when the country conditions or reasons for a refugee claim change or cease to exist, there may be an exception when a person has been subjected to very serious persecution in the past. [64] The Appellant's claim was not rejected pursuant to paragraph 108(1)(e). The Appellants claim was rejected because there is a safe and reasonable IFA. As subsection 108(4) is an exception that exclusively pertains to 108(1)(e), it does not apply to the Appellant's circumstances. The RPD did not err by failing to consider subsection 108(4) when it rejected the Appellant's claim. CONCLUSION [65] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Desiree Pachkowski Desiree Pachkowski September 11, 2020 Date 1 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza FC 385 3 P-2, Appellant's Record, Newspaper article, Los Zetas: Inside Mexico's Most Dangerous Drug Gang (October 2009) at pp. 15 - 25; Newspaper article, Have the Zetas Replaced the Sinaloa as Mexico's Most Powerful Cartel? (January 2012), at p 44 - 49; Newspaper article, Mexico's Cartels Will Continue to Splinter in 2017 (February 2017); at pp. 50 - 54. 4 Persuasive decisions link: https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/decisions/Pages/index.aspx 5 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, at p.80 at para. 26. 6 P-2, Appellant's Record, Mexico 2017 Crime & Safety Report: Hermosillo (2017), at pp. 26 - 33; Are tourists at risk? Cancun murders spike as drug cartels wage a bloody turf war (April 2018), at pp. 34 - 41; Cancun murder surge fueled by alleged drug queen's turf war (April 2018), at pp. 42 - 43. 7Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 8 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:23:15 - 00:25:10. 9 Chairperson Guideline 6: Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding, at para. 3.6.1; X (Re), 2019 CanLII 100177 (CA IRB), at para. 17. 10 RPD Rules, Rule 54(4)(b) 11 RPD Rules, Rule 54 (2)(a) and (b). 12 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:08:27. 13 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:13:55. 14 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:14:58, and 00:23:15 - 00:25:10. 15 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:33:35. 16 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:35:26. 17 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:37:34 - 00:39:30. 18 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:31:47. 19 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No 1172, [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (F.C.A); 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). 20 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 FC 164, 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), at paras. 14-15. 21 Singh v. M.C.I. IMM-826-13, Noël, September 26, 2013, 2013 FC 988 (CanLII), at para. 40. 22 Thirunavukkarasu, supra. 23 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:51:01. 24 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 00:49:55. 25 RAD-1,National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, 31 March 2020, at tab 7.15: Drug cartels, including Los Zetas, the Gulf Cartel (Cartel del Golfo), La Familia Michoacana, and the Beltrán Leyva Organization (BLO); activities and areas of operation; ability to track individuals within Mexico (2017-August 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 August 2019. MEX106302.E, at pp. 10-11. 26 P-2, Appellant's Record, Newspaper article, Los Zetas: Inside Mexico's Most Dangerous Drug Gang (October 2009) at pp. 15. 27 P-2, Appellant's Record, Newspaper article, Have the Zetas Replaced the Sinaloa as Mexico's Most Powerful Cartel? (January 2012), at p. 45. 28 Ibid, at p. 47. 29 RAD-1,National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, 31 March 2020, at tab 7.2: ?Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations. United States. Congressional Research Service. June S. Beittel. 20 December 2019. R41576, at pp. 21-22; at tab 7.15: ?Drug cartels, including Los Zetas, the Gulf Cartel (Cartel del Golfo), La Familia Michoacana, and the Beltrán Leyva Organization (BLO); activities and areas of operation; ability to track individuals within Mexico (2017-August 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 August 2019. MEX106302.E, at p. 2. 30 P-2, Appellant's Record, Newspaper article, Mexico's Cartels Will Continue to Splinter in 2017 (February 2017); at p. 52. 31 Audio recording of hearing before the RPD, September 13, 2018, at 01:16:10. 32 RAD-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, 31 March 2020, at tab 7.2: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations. United States. Congressional Research Service. June S. Beittel. 20 December 2019. R41576, at p. 29. 33 RAD-1,National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, 31 March 2020, at tab 7.15: Drug cartels, including Los Zetas, the Gulf Cartel (Cartel del Golfo), La Familia Michoacana, and the Beltrán Leyva Organization (BLO); activities and areas of operation; ability to track individuals within Mexico (2017-August 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 August 2019. MEX106302.E, at p. 5. 34 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, at p. 8 at paras. 16 and 17. 35 RPD-1, RPD Record, Schedule A form at p. 58. 36 RAD-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, 31 March 2020, at tab 1.2: Mexico. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 14 February 2020., at p.3. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-25670 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