MC0-02809

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MC0-02809 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 Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 23, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Anne Revil Tribunal Counsel for the person who is|are the subject of the appeal Michel F. Perreault 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 is a Mexican citizen. He left his country for Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, because he fears that members of the cartel Santa Rosa de Lima (CSRL) will kill him. He claimed refugee protection in Canada. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his claim in a decision dated November 29, 2019, on the ground that there was an internal flight alternative (IFA) in two Mexican states. [2] He is appealing that decision before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) and points out that: * the cartel members he fears could find him in another Mexican state when he uses his identity; * even though he has never been threatened by the cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), it could happen given the situation in Mexico; * the RPD erroneously concluded that he would not be found by the cartel he fears as the power of those criminals is ever-growing; * one must be careful when assessing different cultural standards, and there is a presumption that his testimony is true; * the National Documentation Package (NDP) on Mexico dated August 30, 2019, states that there is a high homicide rate for young men in most Mexican states; * recruitment for criminal organizations is on the rise; * the criminals he fears have an interest, through vengeance or forced recruitment, to find him and have the ability to do so because of their ties with other criminal groups; * the RPD failed to consider his vulnerability given the incidents he experienced. [3] Therefore, the determinative issue is: Does the appellant, who lived in the state of Guanajuato, have an IFA in the states of Michoacán or Jalisco? DETERMINATION [4] The appeal is dismissed. The RPD was correct to determine that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [5] Mr. XXXX XXXX explains that his brother joined the Mexican army in July 2015. In 2017, his brother participated in operations to end hydrocarbon trafficking. In retaliation for those operations, one of the groups affected, the CSRL, targeted the soldiers' families. [6] The CSRL consequently threatened him and he decided to leave Mexico for Canada. ANALYSIS [7] The RAD's role is to establish whether the RPD erred in its analysis as alleged. [8] To this end, the RAD conducted its own analysis of the record and all the evidence, listened to the recording of the hearing before the RPD and applied the correctness standard of review. [9] On November 26, 2020, the RAD informed the appellant that: [Translation] The RAD brings to your attention the most recent version of the NDP on Mexico, dated September 30, 2020, and particularly tabs: Tab 7.2: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations. United States. Congressional Research Service. June S. Beittel. July 28, 2020. R41576. Tab 7.12: Jalisco Cartel New Generation (CJNG). InSight Crime. July 8, 2020. Tab 7.18: 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...Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. September 21, 2020. MEX200313.E. If you wish to make submissions, you may provide them until December 8, 2020. [10] The appellant did not provide any submissions. [11] The Federal Court of Appeal set out the test to apply to assess an IFA in Rasaratnam1 and Thirunavukkarasu.2 It is clear from those decisions that the test to apply to establish whether an IFA exists is two-pronged: i. ...the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists. ii. Second, conditions in that 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 claimant, for him/her to seek refuge there. With respect to the risk of being killed by the cartel Santa Rosa de Lima in the states of Michoacán or Jalisco [12] The RPD did not err by considering that it had not been established that the appellant would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution or a probability of a risk to his life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, if he had to settle in the states of Michoacán or Jalisco, for the following reasons. [13] First, although the appellant states that the CSRL is growing bigger and that it could find him in the states of Michoacán or Jalisco, he failed to provide any evidence in this regard. Conversely, the documentation in the NDP dated September 30, 2020, states the opposite. [14] However, if the appellant's testimony is presumed to be true, this presumption is gone when there are valid reasons to doubt the truthfulness. In this case, valid reasons include the information in the NDP. [15] The documentation is clear that the CSRL was, as the appellant states, very involved in hydrocarbon trafficking in the state of Guanajuato. [16] There is a rivalry between that cartel and the CJNG, which are fighting for their territory in the state of Guanajuato. However, the latter has been victorious in recent years. [17] As a result, ...in the central state of Guanajuato, violence has increased after a government crackdown on fuel theft which had weakened the local Santa Rosa de Lima cartel and has incited the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación, CJNG) to attempt to take the territory of its rival (The Guardian 3 Apr. 2020).3 [18] Other sources in the documentation dated July 8, 2020,4 confirm the CSRL's loss of power. They report that, in the state of Guanajuato, the CJNG has a decisive advantage over the CSRL. [19] Moreover, the documentation is clear that the CSRL does not have a significant presence in the states of Michoacán or Jalisco. This cartel is actually not one of the nine powerful groups and their subgroups in Mexico according to the Stratfor Global Intelligence map "Tracking Mexico's Cartels in 2020,"5 and is not present in the states named above. [20] Finally, the RAD states that it is aware of the care that is needed when assessing the credibility or plausibility of practices or gestures committed in social and political contexts of other countries, but considers, when reading the documentation, that it is implausible that CSRL members are looking for the appellant and would find him in the state of Michoacán or Jalisco. [21] These states are controlled by the CJNG, enemy of the CSRL, and thus it is unlikely that the latter would assist its enemy in finding the appellant or that the CSRL would have the means necessary to find him in those states given that it is losing power, including in its initial area of influence. [22] Furthermore, the RAD considers that it has not been established that the CSRL would be willing to seek out the appellant in the states in question. That cartel has limited power and targeted the appellant because of blood ties to a soldier who took action against the group, like other soldiers. Mr. XXXX XXXX was not threatened because of his personal actions and he does not represent much of a problem for the CSRL. [23] MR. XXXX XXXX also asserts that he would be in danger in the states of Michoacán and Jalisco because of the high homicide rate and forced recruitment by the cartels, and refers to the following documentation: "Sources report on forced recruitment of children and teenagers to work for criminal organizations (InSight Crime 17 July 2019; AFP 18 Nov. 2017; US 13 Mar. 2019, 33), often as lookouts, in drug transportation or cultivation, as well as involving them in violent crimes; according to InSight Crime, there is an increase in this forced recruitment (InSight Crime 17 July 2019)." 6 [24] There is no question that the situation of insecurity is critical in numerous regions in Mexico, that the homicide rate is high there, and that cartels carry out the forced recruitment of children and teenagers. [25] But the RAD points out that Mr. XXXX XXXX fails to explain how he would be personally subjected, in those states, to a risk of recruitment when he is an adult man, or why he would be personally subjected to a risk of homicide. [26] It was also pointed out that Mr. XXXX XXXX is not disputing never having been threatened by the CJNG, the dominant cartel in the states of Michoacán and Jalisco. [27] Finally, he fails to explain how the risk to which he states he would be subjected differs from that to which, unfortunately, other people living in those states are subjected. [28] As a result, the RPD did not err in the analysis of the first prong of the IFA. With respect to the reasonableness of the IFA [29] The RPD did not err by concluding that it was reasonable for Mr. XXXX XXXX to seek refuge in the states of Michoacán or Jalisco. [30] Mr. XXXX XXXX claims that the RPD failed to consider his personal profile and his risk of being killed or recruited by force. [31] However, for the reasons set out above, the RAD considers that the appellant failed to establish that he would be personally subjected to specific risk in these states and, thus, that he failed to establish that it was unreasonable for him to seek refuge there. [32] Finally, although he refers to his vulnerable state, he fails to explain that vulnerable state in any way and the RAD sees no information on the record that would suggest the existence of a vulnerability to bear in mind when reviewing an IFA. [33] In light of this information, and after taking into account the fact that the appellant was born in 1994, has completed 10 years of schooling, is single and has two children who live with their mother, the RAD concludes that it is not unreasonable to expect Mr. XXXX XXXX to seek refuge in the state of Michoacán or Jalisco. The RPD's decision is therefore correct. DECISION [34] The appeal is dismissed. The RPD's determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection is confirmed. (Signed) Anne Revil Anne Revil December 23, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Rasaratnam v. Canada (1992) 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), p. 710. 2 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (1994) 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.). 3 SAR-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Mexico (September 30, 2020), Tab 7.18: 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...Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. September 21, 2020. MEX200313.E. 4 SAR-1, NDP on Mexico (September 30, 2020), Tab 7.12: Jalisco Cartel New Generation (CJNG). InSight Crime. July 8, 2020. 5 SAR-1, NDP on Mexico (September 30, 2020), Tab 7.2: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations. United States. Congressional Research Service. June S. Beittel. July 28, 2020. R41576. 6 Supra, endnote 3, NDP on Mexico, Tab 7.18. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MC0-02809 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 7 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