MB9-18853

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 File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-18853 MB9-18854 / MB9-18855 / MB9-18856 MB9-18857 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Appelant(e)(s) Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of Decision September 25, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the Appellant(s) Me Alfredo Garcia Conseil(s) du (de la/des) appelant(e)(s) Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) Ministre REASONS AND DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, her spouse, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their three minor children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, all citizens of Mexico, are appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their refugee protection claim. [2] The appellants have not submitted any new evidence on appeal and are not requesting an oral hearing be held before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). [3] The principal appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was appointed the designated representative for her three minor children. [4] In rendering its decision, the RAD took into account the Chairperson's Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [5] Under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the RPD's determination that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are neither "Convention refugees" under section 96 of the IRPA nor "persons in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. BACKGROUND [6] In her Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), the principal appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, alleges that, in Mexico, she fears individuals who threatened her because of a legal problem that her brother XXXX had with Mayor XXXX XXXX of the city of XXXX in the state of XXXX XXXX [7] She alleges that this [translation] "matter" was published in newspapers and that, for that reason, she and her family were harassed. Among other things, she alleges that she was sexually assaulted on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [8] The principal appellant and her minor daughter XXXX left Mexico for Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and claimed refugee protection. [9] The other three appellants left Mexico for Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018. [10] The principal appellant's spouse alleges in his BOC Form that, after the principal appellant's departure, he and the other two appellants continued receiving threats from individuals who were looking for her. [11] The RPD rejected the refugee protection claim on the basis that the appellants' allegations were not credible. [12] Before the RAD, the appellants submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of their credibility for reasons that will be detailed later in the Analysis section, if necessary. [13] For these reasons, the appellants are asking the RAD to set aside the RPD's determination and to grant them refugee protection. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION'S ROLE [14] The role of the RAD is to review RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred, as submitted by the appellant. The exception to this rule concerns the RPD's findings in the assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears in cases where it enjoys a particular advantage. The RAD must then show deference to the RPD's finding (Canada v. Huruglica, F.C.A., No. A-470-14). Reasons will be provided in my analysis if I conclude that the RPD enjoyed a particular advantage. ANALYSIS [15] The issue in this case is whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the credibility of the appellants' allegations. [16] I am of the view that the answer to this question is no for the reasons that follow. [17] The RPD decision is based on a number of elements, which, in its opinion, undermine the credibility of the appellants' essential allegations. These elements are as follows. I. The evidence filed shows that it was the principal appellant's brother XXXX, not she, who denounced the mayor, XXXX XXXX. [18] This is indeed what I noted on reading the media articles filed by the appellants as Exhibit D-18. [19] I also understand from reading the documentary evidence that the conflict between the appellant's brother and Mayor XXXX XXXX is personal in nature, which the appellant failed to indicate in her BOC Form. XXXX former spouse is now the mayor's spouse. A series of complaints and court proceedings between the former spouses has taken place since at least 2012, when XXXX lodged a theft complaint against his former spouse, who had taken some furniture from their home (see Exhibit D-7). It also seems that court proceedings regarding custody of the couple's children and child support are ongoing. Then, XXXX allegedly lodged a [translation] XXXX XXXX XXXX complaint against both his former spouse (see Exhibit D-14) and Mayor XXXX XXXX (see Exhibit D-18). The victim was reportedly the daughter of XXXX and his former spouse. [20] In any event, no evidence was filed showing that the principal appellant played any role in this saga between her brother, his former spouse and Mayor XXXX XXXX. As stated above, the evidence rather shows that it was the appellant's brother who lodged the complaints and who may have made them public by communicating with XXXX. [21] Moreover, asked how she could have harmed XXXX XXXX, the principal appellant was unable to provide a comprehensible answer. [22] When questioned about her brother, who seems to be more at risk given his denunciations, the appellant answered that he has been hiding in different places and that he does not want to leave Mexico [translation] "because he has a good job." [23] In my opinion, that explanation is not reasonable. First, as noted by the RPD, XXXX gives press conferences about his denunciations. Second, he will surely have to appear in court if he would like his complaints and legal proceedings to be heard. [24] In their memorandum, the appellants submit that the RPD erred in its analysis in not taking into account [translation] "secondary aspects" of the claim. [25] I disagree with this submission. [26] In light of the above, I am of the opinion that, on the contrary, the RPD's conclusion and that of the RAD are based on the essential element of the claim, namely, whether the principal appellant denounced or harmed the agent of persecution, Mayor XXXX XXXX. II. The evidence filed does not show that the principal appellant, as a XXXX, publicly XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [27] First, it is my opinion that the evidence filed does not show that the principal appellant has even worked as a [translation] "XXXX," and much less that, as such, she XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [28] The appellant testified that she worked as a [translation] "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX." When questioned about this, she stated that she XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, including activities of the governor and his spouse. In my view, this is a [translation] "XXXX XXXX" or XXXX XXXX XXXX position with the XXXX of XXXX rather than that of a XXXX. [29] The appellant also testified that she had never XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or worked as a XXXX for other XXXX. [30] The appellant testified that she had informed her fellow XXXX that [translation] "police officers were getting ready to engage in child trafficking and drug transactions," but added that neither she nor her fellow XXXX ever denounced those crimes. [31] In their memorandum, the appellants submit that Exhibit D-3 shows that she worked as a XXXX. [32] In my opinion, that exhibit actually shows that the appellant was the [translation] "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" from 1992 to 1998. As stated above, I am of the view that that document does not show that she worked as a XXXX. [33] I can only come to the same conclusion as the RPD, namely, that nothing in the evidence filed shows that the appellant denounced criminal activities as a XXXX or otherwise, which would have made her a target. III. The evidence filed does not demonstrate that the alleged sexual assault against the appellant is related to her work as a XXXX or to her brother's problems with Mayor XXXX XXXX. [34] The RPD did not reject the fact that the principal appellant might have been sexually assaulted, but concluded, in light of the above, that the assault did not result from her work as a XXXX or from her denunciation of Mayor XXXX XXXX, as she has alleged. [35] Since the RPD did not find the appellant's allegations regarding the mayor and her work as a XXXX credible, it had to conclude that those could not be the reasons for the sexual assault. [36] I cannot but arrive at the same conclusion. [37] In their memorandum, the appellants submit that the RPD erred in failing to take into account the principal appellant's profile under the Chairperson's Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution or to show sensitivity to her. [38] I disagree with these submissions. [39] The appellants do not describe the principal appellant's [translation] "profile" that the RPD failed to consider. [40] Upon listening to the recording of the RPD hearing, I also noted that the panel had not lacked sensitivity towards the appellant. In addition, in their memorandum, the appellants give no examples of a lack of sensitivity on the part of the RPD member. [41] The principal appellant and the minor female appellants never alleged a fear of persecution in Mexico based on their mere membership in the particular social group of "women." The appellants' alleged fear is based on the principal appellant's alleged activities, which, I repeat, were not found credible. [42] Accordingly, in light of the above, I conclude that the appellants have failed to establish that the RPD committed errors warranting the RAD's intervention. REMEDY [43] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are neither "Convention refugees" under section 96 of the IRPA nor "persons in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [44] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc September 25, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-18853 MB9-18854 / MB9-18855 / MB9-18856 MB9-18857 7