MC0-02537

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-02537 MC0-02538 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 8, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Richard Sheitoyan Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Alfredo Garcia Conseil des personnes 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 the appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are citizens of Mexico. They allege that they are targeted by individuals affiliated with the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG) [Jalisco new generation cartel] that is interested in using their XXXX XXXX XXXX to launder money. [2] The interest in their business began in XXXX 2008. Their reaction was to move twice, in 2008 and in 2015. In XXXX 2018, there were approached again, and a formal meeting was held with the head of the organization, who explained their role in a money laundering scheme. In XXXX 2018, they were again contacted and threatened if they failed to comply. They moved again and made plans to leave the country on XXXX XXXX, 2019. [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the appellants credible. It determined that they are neither refugees within the meaning of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Convention) nor "persons in need of protection" within the meaning of section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). It considers that viable internal flight alternatives (IFAs) were available in Mexico, in both Campeche and the Yucatán. [4] It is argued in the appeal memorandum that the RPD erred because: - the agent of persecution is a large notorious group; - its interest in finding the couple is motivated by revenge and their usefulness in their operation; - it has the capacity to do so, considering the scope of its operations; and - the specified region is not objectively reasonable because they have no family or social network to help them. [5] The determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is the IFA. DETERMINATION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in determining that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. ANALYSIS [7] My role is to review all the evidence and determine whether the RPD's decision is correct.1 [8] As the owners of a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX since 2007, they had been of interest to individuals since XXXX 2008. Out of fear, they changed residences, but remained in the same area, and their business remained open. In XXXX 2015, they moved again, out of fear of the kidnappings and threats of extortion that plagued their neighbourhood. They were still operating their business when individuals showed up there on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. They brought Mr. XXXX to the head of the group, who explained his money laundering plan to him. After refusing to co-operate, he was given time to think about the proposal. The couple went about its business until XXXX XXXX, 2018, when armed men showed up again. They made the boss's displeasure known and indicated that that was their last warning to co-operate. At that point, they decided to sell the business and made plans to leave on XXXX XXXX, 2019. They have had no contact with the individuals since XXXX. Notoriety of the agent of persecution [9] The appellants submit that the RPD did not consider the profile of the agents of persecution, their interest or their capacity. [10] CJNG members have a reputation for being dangerous and violent and are present in 22 of 32 Mexican states.2 This was enough for the appellants to take them seriously and fear them. The fact that individuals visited a few times suggests an ongoing interest in them that is related to the group's criminal activities and the plan to grow the financial aspect of part of its operations. [11] According to the appellants, refusing to comply with demands is an affront that would most likely lead to violence. The organization's extensive presence in Mexico provides it with communication channels enabling it to locate anyone sought. They also state that, contrary to the RPD's claim, the fact that relatives and close friends have not been contacted should not be interpreted as a lack of interest in them, but rather as discretion to avoid drawing attention to its operations. [12] The appellants state that they moved several times after their problems with the CJNG began. However, their problems did not result in their moving their business. I consider such behaviour particularly noteworthy. Mr. XXXX testified that because of the threats, they closed their business to public access and locked up the premises during working hours. Such a precaution provided little safety because all the CJNG members had to do was wait for the beginning or the end of the workday to confront them. There is also cause to believe that residential moves provided little safety because contact was made at the workplace. [13] According to the appellant, the criminal group's interest in them stems from a desire for revenge for their refusal to co-operate in a scheme facilitating money laundering. There was also allegedly still the intent of seeing that project through. Lastly, the interest was also reportedly related to their fear of being reported to the Mexican authorities. [14] Claiming that revenge was the individuals' motivation for finding them, while stating that the purpose of their search was to proceed with the operation of laundering drug money seems contradictory to me. [15] The fact that there has been no contact since XXXX must also be considered. For the individuals, the closure of the business confirmed that the appellants would not co-operate. Returning to it occasionally, for the purposes of liquidating it, as Mr. XXXX testified, increased the risk of and facilitated their being found. Despite this, they did not encounter any problems. They also lived in the same community of XXXX up until their departure in XXXX. Continuing to live in that area also made it easier for the individuals interested in them to find them. Yet, they were not bothered, and there is nothing to suggest that they are even sought after. [16] The assumption that the individuals have not contacted people close to the appellants because they do not want to draw unwanted attention to themselves is speculation, not an argument. The same is true for the assumption that the criminals fear being exposed to the authorities. [17] The capacity to find the appellants throughout Mexico is based on the juxtaposition of the vast network available to the group and the availability of personal identifying information obtained through the fraudulent sale of databases. The RPD's analysis established accessibility to databases containing residential addresses. It also noted that it is not possible to use a Clave Única de Registro de Población (CURP), a voter identity card, to access a residential address. I consider that if obtaining identifying information is possible, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants could be located, but the information would have to be up to date. [18] However, as mentioned above, the criminals' behaviour since November denotes no interest in the appellants. The closure of their business is in clear defiance of the instructions received and the geographic proximity to their agents made it even easier to find them. The conclusion drawn by the RPD regarding the group's lack of interest in the appellants is correct. Thus, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants would not be subjected to a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they relocated to Campeche or the Yucatán. [19] With respect to the second prong, the appellants argue that neither of the places proposed for their relocation are objectively reasonable to them. [20] They allege: - the lack of family or friends in the proposed locations to facilitate their integration; - their age, which affects their employability; and - their specific experience in graphic design and entrepreneurship. [21] Their experience in textile screen printing is an asset enabling them to focus on a specific field and use their experience to their advantage. They also demonstrated resourcefulness in their entrepreneurship by establishing a client network. Nothing suggests that they would be unable to establish a new social network or support themselves in those locations. The RPD's conclusion regarding the reasonableness of IFAs in Campeche and the Yucatán is correct. CONCLUSION [22] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the determination of the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Me Richard Sheitoyan Me Richard Sheitoyan February 8, 2021 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 Exhibit SPR-1, Refugee Protection Division record, National Documentation Package on Mexico (August 30, 2019), Tab 7.2: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations. United States. Congressional Research Service. June S. Beittel. August 15, 2019. R41576. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-02537 MC0-02538 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 3 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