MB9-20970

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-20970 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 at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit à Date of decision September 25, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Philippe Rabot Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Gisela G Barraza 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] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Mexico. He alleges that supporters of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) want to kill him because he was involved in the election campaign of candidates from another political party. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) did not believe that he had been involved in politics because he contradicted himself in the evidence relating to the timeline of events. The appellant is criticizing the RPD for not considering the documentary evidence that corroborates his testimony about his political involvement. [2] I find that the appellant is credible with respect to his political involvement. However, he is not credible with respect to his claim that he was threatened by PRI supporters. Also, his delay in leaving the country is behaviour that is inconsistent with the alleged fear. The appeal is therefore dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] According to the appellant's written account,1 he worked as a XXXX XXXX for National Action Party (PAN) candidates in the legislative and municipal elections in the XXXX of 2018. In XXXX 2018, he received death threats from supporters of another political party, the PRI. He was warned to stop supporting the PAN. Then, on XXXX XXXX, he was stopped by PRI supporters as he parked his car. The supporters vandalized his car, but he escaped unharmed. He was again warned to stop supporting the PAN or else he would be killed. [4] The appellant claims that he realized at that moment that his life was in danger. He immediately left the area where he was living and moved with his wife and children to another part of Mexico, hoping that the people who had threatened him would not find him. [5] Five months later, in XXXX 2018, the appellant left Mexico for Canada. In his refugee protection claim, he alleges that he wanted to leave sooner but that he had some business to take care of and he had to renew his passport. However, when he appeared before the RPD, he testified that shortly before he left Mexico, he learned about the murder of another PAN XXXX XXXX who had also fled his region after being threatened by the PRI. The appellant stated that that was when he realized that he was not safe in Mexico. [6] In its written decision, the RPD states that it did not believe that the appellant worked as a XXXX XXXX for the PAN2 because he wrote in his immigration form3 that he was not involved in politics. Also, in his refugee protection claim, the address he listed for his wife and children is the same as their previous address, which contradicts his allegation that they moved in XXXX 2018. [7] The appellant's only argument in his appeal memorandum4 is that the RPD did not consider the evidence on the record that corroborates his testimony about his political involvement. ANALYSIS [8] The documentary evidence does indeed corroborate the appellant's testimony that he was a political organizer for the PAN during the 2018 election campaign.5 I therefore give him the benefit of the doubt as to why he did not mention it in his immigration form. I acknowledge that it was an error on his part. [9] However, in my opinion, the appellant's testimony does not benefit from the presumption of credibility in relation to two key aspects: (1) whether he was threatened by PRI supporters during the election campaign; and (2) whether it was his fear of being killed because of his political involvement that led him to leave Mexico. The presumption of truthfulness is rebutted because of inconsistencies in the evidence, as follows. [10] There is no indication in the evidence that the appellant reported to anyone the threats he claims were made against him in XXXXand XXXX 2018. He claimed that he filed a police complaint, but he was unable to produce a copy of the complaint. There is no indication that he reported these incidents to the political party he represented, the PAN, or to the election commission. Yet he was an experienced political organizer, if his testimony is to be believed, and even represented the PRI six years earlier. In my opinion, his failure to report the alleged acts of violence against him is a serious inconsistency for someone who claims that he thought his life was in danger. [11] In addition, the appellant presented contradictory and inconsistent evidence to explain why he waited five months before leaving Mexico, choosing to move with family to another part of the country. He first argued that he had business to take care of, without specifying exactly what it was. In the circumstances, I have difficulty accepting that it would have taken so long. Also, he explained that he had to renew his passport, and he did in fact do that. However, the evidence on the record shows that his new passport was issued on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018,6 and he therefore could have left the country at that time, if he truly thought, as he stated in his refugee protection claim, that it was only a matter of time before he was found by the people who had threatened him. [12] The day he appeared before the RPD, the appellant tried to explain this inconsistency by stating that it was another event that made him realize that he needed to leave Mexico, namely, the murder of one of his colleagues by PRI supporters. I do not believe that that event really happened. It is such a dramatic development that it likely would have been mentioned in the refugee protection claim if it were true. When questioned about this omission, the appellant explained that he could not write everything in his refugee protection claim. However, this is not a minor detail. Instead, I believe that the appellant added this allegation to try to justify the five-month delay in leaving the country. In my view, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the appellant to provide documentary evidence to support his testimony, such as a newspaper article on his colleague's murder, or even a written statement from a PAN representative confirming it. [13] I considered the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package on Mexico. I did not find anything indicating that PAN supporters and workers are persecuted by the PRI or the Mexican authorities because of their political beliefs. Accordingly, the appellant's profile as someone who was involved with the PAN during an election campaign is insufficient on its own to establish that his fear is well founded. CONCLUSION [14] The evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant was threatened by reason of his political involvement. Moreover, his delay in leaving Mexico is behaviour that is inconsistent with the alleged fear. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (signed) Philippe Rabot Philippe Rabot September 25, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, pages 28 and 29. 2 Ibid., pages 3 to 8. 3 Ibid., pages 62 to 82. 4 Appeal record, pages 18 to 23. 5 Exhibit D-4, RPD record, pages 109 to 113. 6 RPD record, page 85. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-20970 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