MB9-30090

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-30090 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, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 10, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Kristine Plouffe-Malette Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Alfredo Garcia 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, a citizen of Mexico, is appealing against the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision, dated November 19, 2019, rejecting his refugee protection claim on the grounds that there is an internal flight alternative available. [2] Despite the findings regarding the appellant's credibility, the only determinative question on appeal is the RPD's assessment of the internal flight alternative. For the reasons that follow, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) concludes that the RPD decision is correct in fact and in law. The appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] In XXXX 2012, the appellant was held against his will and became the victim of extortion by a member of the Los Caballeros Templarios cartel. He was released upon payment of XXXX XXXX XXXX pesos. He then paid a sum to his aggressor for two months. Since he was no long able to pay the required amount, he hid in Mexico City until 2014. [4] After he was allegedly made a victim of extortion again in Mexico City, the appellant then hid in Guadalajara. The threats reportedly started up again. Eventually, the appellant allegedly returned to be with his family in XXXX in XXXX 2017. The appellant supposedly filed a complaint with the police, but nothing was done to protect him. On the contrary, he was supposedly told to pay a sum of money to avoid problems. [5] Fearing for his life, he left Mexico on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, to claim refugee protection. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [6] Pursuant to the teachings in Huruglica,1 the RAD conducted an independent analysis of the evidence in support of the appeal, which included listening to the hearing in this case and, since the RPD did not have a meaningful advantage with respect to issues of credibility, it applied the standard of correctness. ANALYSIS The appellant's credibility [7] The RPD concluded that, generally, speaking, the appellant testified spontaneously about the events in XXXX between 2012 and 2014, and thus established, on a balance of probabilities, that he was the victim of extortion. [8] The RPD did not find that the appellant's testimony was credible with respect to subsequent events, presumably those in Mexico City, Guadalajara and XXXX. Since the determinative question on appeal is the internal flight alternative (IFA) and the RAD does not need to reply to all arguments raised on appeal,2 the findings regarding the appellant's credibility will not be addressed unless the impact the analysis of the internal flight alternative. Internal flight alternative [9] To begin, it is important to remember that the test for determining whether there is an internal flight alternative is two pronged. The aim is to determine whether there is a location elsewhere in the country where the refugee protection claimant, in this case the appellant, would not seemingly have a well-founded fear of persecution or would not be subjected to a risk as set out in subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act3 (IRPA) and, considering all the circumstances, whether it would be objectively unreasonable for the refugee protection claimant to settle there.4 The RPD correctly identified these two prongs. [10] Since the appellant confirmed that there is no other reason why he could not live in Mexico aside from his problems with the cartel, the second prong-namely, whether it would be objectively unreasonable for the appellant to settle in Mérida or Tuxtla Gutiérrez-is not being challenged. The RAD sees no errors in the RPD's analysis of the second prong and sees no reason to intervene. Consequently, there is only one issue in this appeal: did the RPD err in its assessment of the first prong of the possibility of an IFA in Mexico, in the cities of Mérida and Tuxtla Gutiérrez, considering his personal situation and the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package on Mexico? [11] For the reasons that follow, the RAD confirms the RPD's conclusion regarding the safety of Mérida and Tuxtla Gutiérrez in the context of an IFA. [12] Like the RPD, the RAD finds that, generally speaking, the appellant's testimony was credible with respect to the allegations of the kidnapping, confinement and extortion from 2012 to 2014. In his memorandum, on the basis of this one conclusion, the appellant argues that, since he was a victim of the cartel, the interest of the cartel's members has been demonstrated and that since the authorities are corrupt, they will have the means to find him. [13] With respect for the appellant, he has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that members of the Los Caballeros Templarios cartel allegedly have an interest in and the ability to search for him in the cities of Mérida and Tuxtla Gutiérrez, and the RAD does not accept these arguments on appeal. [14] When questioned about that, the appellant stated that, since his presumed aggressors knew that he had filed a complaint and since he had not paid his debt, they would obviously want to find him. The appellant's hypothesis is based on his statement that he allegedly received a threatening telephone call confirming that the cartel knew he had filed a complaint with the police. However, that information is not included in his Basis of Claim Form. When asked about the omission, the appellant did not provide an explanation but simply repeated his testimony. [15] Furthermore, the appellant stated that he saw the chief of police with one of the cartel's leaders at a gas station on two occasions. He stated that although he did not hear their conversation, they were talking about him. The RPD was of the opinion that this could be evidence of collusion between the authorities and the cartel-and that collusion is not being called into question here-but it cannot establish, on a balance of probabilities, that those two people were talking about the appellant as he claims they were. [16] The RPD concluded that the appellant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the cartel found out-however that was-that he had spoken out against members of the cartel. The RAD draws the same conclusion. [17] What is more, all of the appellant's family members remained in Mexico and many of them have been in XXXX since 2012-more than eight years-and none of them have had issues with cartel members or anyone else. This does not weigh in favour of the argument that the cartel members have an interest in finding the appellant. [18] The documentary evidence is clear that the Los Caballeros Templarios cartel was dismantled after the police killed its leader in 2014 and arrested and killed a number of members in 2015. This cartel lost control of a large part of its territory. The apparent remnants of the cartel operate in Michoacán state, far from the cities of Mérida and Tuxtla Gutiérrez.5 Therefore, in order to corrupt the authorities, the cartel would require the means, which does not appear to be the case according to the documentary evidence. [19] In conclusion, considering all of the evidence and for the aforementioned reasons, the appellant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that if he were to return to Mexico-to the cities of Mérida and Tuxtla Gutiérrez-that he could not live there in safety or that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate. The RPD decision is correct and the appeal is dismissed. As a result, the appellant has not demonstrated that if he were to return to Mexico, he would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution or that he would be personally subjected, on a balance of probabilities, to a danger of torture, a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. CONCLUSION [20] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the appeal is dismissed and the RPD determination, that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1), is confirmed. (signed) Kristine Plouffe-Malette Me Kristine Plouffe-Malette December 10, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Chace Reveron v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1114, at para. 30, which sets out the Supreme Court of Canada teachings in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, at para. 16. 3 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 589 (CA). 4 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (CA). 5 SAR-1, National Documentation Package on Mexico (September 30, 2020), 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. August 15, 2019. MEX106302.E; Tab 7.25: ?Familia Michoacana. InSight Crime. May 5, 2020; Tab 10.3: ?Mexico's Fight against Transnational Organized Crime. Army University Press. Military Review. R. Evan Ellis. May 24, 2018. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-30090 RAD.25.02 (Janvier 2020) Available in English 4 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