MC0-08597

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-08597 MC0-08598 / MC0-08599 / MC0-08600 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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 25, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Kristine Plouffe-Malette Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Manuel Antonio Centurion Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The male appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the female appellant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the minor appellants) are from Mexico. They are appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated June 22, 2020. [2] The appellants fear for their lives by reason of death threats they allegedly received from members of the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG) while doing volunteer work organized by their XXXX XXXX with disadvantaged children near the city of Playa del Carmen. They also fear an influential local XXXX, XXXX XXXX, who is also known as XXXX. After drawing several negative inferences with regard to the appellants' credibility and criticizing them for the lack of corroborating evidence, the RPD established that the existence of an internal flight alternative (IFA) was the only determinative issue. It rejected their claims for refugee protection, concluding that the appellants could safely move to the city of Mérida or the state of Durango. [3] The appellants are contesting all of the RPD's conclusions, claiming that they gave credible testimony, filed seven exhibits in support of their refugee protection claims and are unable to move by reason of the threats they received when they took refuge elsewhere in the country and because of their possible registration in the national system for education information and administration enabling anyone to find them anywhere in the country. They presented as new evidence an excerpt from the said information system and also filed a request for an oral hearing. [4] For the following reasons, the new evidence is not admissible and the request for an oral hearing is denied. With respect, the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellants' credibility and when it failed to comment on the probative value of the documents presented. However, the only determinative issue on appeal is whether there is an IFA. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is of the opinion that the RPD's decision is erroneous and that the appellants established, on a balance of probabilities, that they would not be safe if they returned to Mexico. BACKGROUND [5] According to their Basis of Claim Forms (BOC Forms), the appellants XXXX on the XXXX XXXX XXXX during the week, while on weekends XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Playa del Carmen, which is XXXX XXXX from the XXXX XXXX XXXX. They claim that they received death threats from members of the CJNG. They fear a local XXXX by the name of XXXX XXXX, because, while they were volunteering, they allegedly attempted to help a teenager named XXXX XXXX, who was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX She apparently stated that he was colluding with the CJNG. She has reportedly disappeared since then. [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2019, XXXX gave the male appellant information and compromising photographs related to the activities of the cartel, including XXXX XXXX XXXX [7] On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the male appellant gave this information to a XXXX named XXXX XXXX. [8] On XXXX XXXX, 2019, XXXX did not meet the appellants as she had every other Saturday and the other teenagers in the group stated that their XXXX had accused the appellants of being responsible for her disappearance. That very day, the male appellant received a telephone call demanding that he reveal XXXX location. He was threatened with retaliation. Then, a few minutes later, he received a second call confirming specific information about his own daughters and their grandparents, whom they were with. He received photographs of his daughters and was threatened with death if he did not collaborate to return XXXX. The male appellant called the police; however, his complaint was not recorded. [9] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the appellants returned to their XXXX, which was the meeting spot for their volunteer work. Four armed individuals came up to the male appellant, pointed a weapon at his head and struck him, demanding that he provide information concerning XXXX disappearance. They also demanded that the appellants stop their work, which was detrimental to their interests. The police were called but no one came. Then, the appellants went to the police station, where the male appellant recognized one of his assailants. He still wanted to file a complaint; however, after waiting for an hour and a half, he was told that no one was available. They were asked to come back later. [10] The male appellant consulted a lawyer and friend from his community. She advised him to stop going to Playa del Carmen. That same day, a pastor from their XXXX advised them to leave the region immediately. [11] On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the appellants left the region and went to Mérida, where they stayed with the male appellant's brother for two days. [12] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the appellants decided to move to XXXX, Nuevo León, to start their lives over. They arrived there on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXIn early XXXX, the male appellant and the XXXX allegedly had telephone conversations concerning the CJNG's activities. The XXXX was XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2019. In the meantime, the male appellant had attempted to secure a job at the XXXX XXXX. He had contacted the XXXX and provided his personal information so that he could run checks in the national registry of XXXX XXXX XXXX On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the male appellant received a call informing him that he had to give back the compromising photographs or else he and his daughters would be executed. He was given an ultimatum of one week. The appellants consulted the same lawyer. This time, she advised them to leave the country, stating that the police could not do anything for them. [13] The appellants had already taken steps to obtain passports and documents to enter Canada, as the female appellant's parents had offered them a trip that same summer. The appellants then went to XXXX, where they stayed for two days before fleeing the country on XXXX XXXX, 2019, to go to Canada. After several unsuccessful attempts with several lawyers, the appellants met their representative and filed their refugee protection claims on XXXX XXXX, 2019. DETERMINATION [14] The appeals are allowed. The RPD erred in determining that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. They are persons in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). REJECTION OF THE NEW EVIDENCE AND OF THE REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [15] To be admissible to the RAD, new evidence must first meet the criteria set out under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, followed by those in Singh,1 adapted from Raza,2 both from the Federal Court of Appeal. Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that "the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection." The Court held that the three admissibility criteria in Raza, namely, credibility, relevance and newness, also apply to any request to submit new evidence to the RAD. [16] The appellants presented an excerpt from the system for education information and administration (SIGED) website in Mexico that refers to a reference and information system covering all aspects of the national education system. It compiles information on students, teachers and schools without specifying whether they belong to the public or private education system. It can be accessed by teachers, education authorities, researchers, parents, students and society in general. The document itself has no publication date, as it is an excerpt from a web page. However, it makes reference to information compiled between 1990 and 2013. Although it is virtually impossible that the website was launched in 1990, it certainly could have been put online in 2013. In any case, the appellants testified about this site during their hearing in 2020. In their memorandum, the appellants claim that this document confirms that anyone who wishes to access this system could locate them using it. [17] In the RAD's opinion, this document does not meet the criteria set out under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. This document does not constitute evidence that arose after the rejection of their refugee protection claims because, according to the appellants' testimony, the system existed at the time of their hearing. The document was taken from a Mexican government website. Everything, especially the appellants' testimony, suggests that it was reasonably available prior to the rejection of the appellants' refugee protection claims. As a result, the RAD concludes that since this system was mentioned in their written accounts appended to their BOC Forms and was discussed during the hearing, the appellants could have presented the document to the RPD after their hearing in accordance with the Refugee Protection Division Rules and it would have decided whether to admit it. Furthermore, as it was taken from a public website and concerns a topic discussed during the hearing, the document was reasonably available and should have been presented to the RPD. As a result, the RAD rejects the new evidence presented by the appellants. [18] For an oral hearing to be held, the cumulative criteria set out in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA must be met, meaning that the new evidence being admitted raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. As no new evidence was admitted, the RAD denies the request for an oral hearing. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [19] In accordance with Huruglica,3 the RAD conducted an independent review of the evidence submitted in support of the appeal, including listening to the hearing, and, since the RPD did not enjoy a meaningful advantage as to the issue of credibility, applied the correctness standard. ANALYSIS The appellants gave credible testimony [20] The RPD drew two negative inferences with respect to the appellants' credibility concerning the preparation for their trip and their relationship with the female appellant's parents and family members. For the following reasons, the RAD is of the opinion that these inferences are erroneous. The preparation for the appellants' trip and the delay in leaving the country [21] According to the passports filed in the RPD record, the appellants all obtained their travel documents in XXXX 2019, several months before the alleged death threats. Their written accounts state that they had already planned a trip to Canada as a vacation and that it had been offered to them as a gift by the parents, which should be understood as referring to the female appellant's parents. This sentence does not reveal who the gift was offered to, when it was offered or even whether they paid for the full cost of the trip, for example. [22] At the hearing, several details were provided regarding the preparation for the trip. First, the male appellant confirmed that the flight tickets had been purchased in XXXX 2019 but did not provide the exact date, making it impossible to know whether the purchase was made before or after the alleged death threats. Next, the male appellant also stated that these tickets were dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the date the appellants had arrived in Montréal. Lastly, he stated that this trip had been a gift for his eldest daughter. That is the only information the RPD had concerning the preparation for the appellants' trip, as no questions were asked that could have led to further detail. [23] The RPD drew several conclusions that were not based on the evidence with regard to the preparation for the trip. The RPD erred when it stated that the male appellant had purchased the flight tickets. The male appellant did not confirm who had paid for the tickets-him or the grandparents-as the question was not asked. The male appellant stated that he had planned the trip but wrote that his parents-in-law had offered the trip as a gift. The RPD also erred when it drew a negative inference from that inconsistency between the appellants' oral testimony and written accounts, because the male appellant was never given the opportunity to explain the inconsistency. In fact, the RPD did not ask any questions to that effect. [24] The RPD also drew several conclusions that were not based on the evidence when it stated that the male appellant had contradicted himself with regard to his financial means, which, on the one hand, were allegedly insufficient to go on the trip, but, on the other hand, were apparently sufficient to take refuge elsewhere in the country. The hearing included a series of unclear questions that do not make it possible to conclude whether the male appellant had or no longer had the financial means to go on the trip. At no time did the RPD ask the appellants to explain who had paid for the costs of the trip that was initially planned to Canada. Nor were the appellants asked to explain why they allegedly no longer had the financial means between XXXX and XXXX to go on the said trip. It is impossible to know exactly when the appellants allegedly made the decision to no longer go on the trip or exactly when they apparently did not have the necessary financial means, as these questions were not asked. Furthermore, the RPD was incorrect when it stated that at the hearing, the male appellant was confronted with the statement that they had allegedly fled with their savings on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, because the male appellant was not confronted in that regard. [25] Based on these contradictions with no satisfactory justification, the RPD concluded that the appellants had not adopted the behaviour of persons fearing for their lives, as they had had passports, valid entry documents and flight tickets but had waited three months before leaving the country even though nothing had prevented them from fleeing. That conclusion is erroneous, not only for the foregoing reasons, but also because it is based on a narrow interpretation of the appellants' testimony. [26] The appellants were repeatedly asked why they had not fled the country earlier. The RPD asked that question as it discussed each incident, sometimes insisting on obtaining a response when the one given was not satisfactory. This posture could have been called into question. The RAD notes the various responses provided. In one of these responses, the male appellant candidly stated that he did not know why they had not left the country earlier. He then stated that he had truly believed that God would help them, as would the police; above all, they had not wanted to leave their country where they had served all their lives. He also stated that he had hoped to try and rebuild their lives 2000 kilometres away from their home by choosing to move to XXXX and that he had been late in realizing the true magnitude of the problem he and his family members were facing, because he had truly wanted to help and serve. [27] Although the RPD noted that [translation] "only financial reasons were used to explain why they had not left"4 and considered it an unsatisfactory response to the question regarding the delay in leaving the country, that does not reflect the appellants' testimony. The RPD concluded that the male appellant [translation] "had completed the preparation for his trip to Canada in the month of April" and that "he had fled with his savings in the month of May but had decided not to leave Mexico"; however, that does not reflect the entirety of the male appellant's testimony and is not based on the evidence on the record. All in all, the RPD's conclusions regarding the preparation for the trip and the delay in fleeing the country are incorrect. The appellants were not asked about each of the RPD's conclusions; therefore, the RAD can only consider their statements. As a result, it is not possible to make an adverse credibility finding at this stage of the analysis and the RPD's conclusion is erroneous. The relationships between the appellants' family members remaining in Mexico [28] According to their written accounts and oral testimony, the appellants regularly left the minor appellants with their maternal grandparents. When asked whether the members of their respective families may have received threats, the appellants both confirmed that they do not know whether they were threatened. They stated that, to their knowledge, their family members had not been threatened. [29] The male appellant stated that he was no longer in close contact with his family members in Chiapas because of his conversion to the XXXX XXXX. [30] The female appellant stated that she is in a dispute with her brothers because of an inheritance, which should be understood as being a gift between living people. Her father, who is still alive, allegedly wanted to divide a piece of land between her and her brothers, which apparently caused a dispute. As no further questions were asked regarding this inheritance and dispute, there is no other information about this event. Contrary to the RPD's claim that the female appellant no longer spoke to her parents, she stated that her parents were angry with her but not with her daughters, adding that they adore their grandparents. That is the only information that was obtained from the few questions asked by the RPD concerning the relationship between the female appellant and her parents. [31] In the RAD's opinion, there are no contradictions or inconsistencies here, only family relationships that are strained for reasons that were explained without specifics. It is not surprising that the grandparents take care of their grandchildren despite having a difficult relationship with their own child. Furthermore, in this case, as no details were asked for, no conclusions can be made as to the appellants' credibility. [32] That is also evident from the RPD's conclusion regarding the name of the female appellant's brother, which appears on the four appellants' passports as the emergency contact person. On this basis, the RPD noted that there is an inconsistency that undermines the appellants' credibility, as the female appellant stated that she is in a dispute with her brothers. [33] At the hearing, it was confirmed that the name on the passports is in fact that of the male appellant's brother; however, no questions were asked by the RPD, contrasting the appearance of this brother with the one the female appellant states she is no longer in contact with. Furthermore, as there was no mention of the date on which the family conflict occurred, it is not possible to know whether his name was added before or after the conflict. All in all, for the foregoing reasons, the RPD's conclusions are incorrect with regard to the inconsistencies between the statements in the written account and the statements made during the oral testimony concerning the presence and involvement of the grandparents and the male appellant's brother in their lives. No negative inferences can be drawn as to the appellants' credibility from these lines of testimony, as no questions were asked that would have allowed them to explain the discrepancies and provide specific details. The appellants' credibility with respect to the allegations forming the basis of their refugee protection claims and the analysis of the evidence presented [34] The appellants allege that they received death threats on XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2019. First, they fled to Mérida on XXXX XXXX. Second, they fled to XXXX on XXXX XXXX and third, they fled to Montréal on XXXX XXXX XXXX [35] During their hearing, they generally gave consistent, clear and spontaneous testimony regarding the death threats and the various events surrounding their flight. They did both experience moments of significant stress, requiring the RPD to stop for a few minutes without necessarily taking an official break. They were able to provide the same dates and locations as they had provided in their written accounts. The RAD also notes that no errors were found in the forms appended to the refugee protection claims, which is extremely rare. Furthermore, the RPD did not identify any contradictions, omissions or implausibilities with regard to the central events of the refugee protection claims. In fact, it asked very few questions and did not raise any issues concerning the appellants' credibility with respect to the identity of the assailants, the death threats or the appellants' moves. [36] After listening to the hearing, the RAD cannot draw any negative inferences with regard to the appellants' credibility. That conclusion also applies to the seven documents that the appellants filed in support of their refugee protection claims and that the RPD failed to address. In that respect, the RAD notes that the RPD made a palpable error in paragraph 43 of its decision when it states that there is a total lack of evidence with the exception of diplomas and photocopies of the appellants' letters of resignation. The RAD must point out that, during the hearing, the appellants were not asked any questions about these documents with the exception of exhibits P3 and P4, which consist of the appellants' diplomas. [37] Exhibits P-1 and P-2 contain the appellants' letters of resignation. As with their diplomas (P-3 and P-4), the fact that the appellants were teachers with diplomas who had resigned from their jobs was not called into question. These documents have probative value. [38] Exhibits P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 are four affidavits that were written by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX respectively. [39] Exhibit P-5 was drawn up by the lawyer that the appellants had consulted on two occasions. In it, she reiterates the advice she had given them, which the male appellant referred to during his testimony and in his written account. The author of Exhibit P-6 confirms that the appellants stayed at his home in XXXX from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX, 2019, by reason of their persecution. The author of Exhibit P-7 confirms that the appellants lived at his home in XXXX from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX, 2019, while waiting for their trip and by reason of their persecution. Exhibit P-8 was written by the male appellant's brother, who confirms that the appellants stayed at his home on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2019, because they feared for their lives. [40] Given the lack of questions and the previous findings with regard to the appellants' credibility, these affidavits have probative value and confirm the appellants' statements, especially with regard to their attempts to protect themselves. [41] In their memorandum, the appellants argue that the RPD was incorrect when it made a conclusion about the lack of evidence regarding the loss of his telephone containing the compromising photographs, because he was not asked any questions in that respect. The RAD agrees with the male appellant. Although the male appellant confirmed that he had lost the telephone, the RPD did not ask him to specify how he had obtained the photographs or whether he had made efforts to recover them. Therefore, the RPD was speculating when it concluded that the male appellant had received the images [translation] "in his personal messages,"5 because there was no mention of messages, only of a telephone on which the male appellant had received the said photographs. [42] The RAD adds that the RPD erred when it stated that the appellants failed to present the text messages establishing that they had received death threats, because there was no mention of receiving threats via text message. On the contrary, the male appellant stated that he had been threatened over the telephone on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and had been threatened in person on XXXX XXXX. He did state that he had received photographs of his daughters after the call with the death threats on XXXX XXXX; however, once again, he did not specify how the photographs had been sent. Furthermore, the RAD is of the opinion that the RPD was speculating when it stated that the male appellant [translation] "could have easily recovered these documents [the photographs and the text messages with the death threats] from his telephone provider so that he could file them in evidence before the panel." The RAD repeats that the RPD does not know how the compromising photographs, or the photographs of the male appellant's daughters were sent or received. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether such an action would have had any chance of success. [43] The male appellant argues that if he had been asked questions to that effect, he could have explained that he had received the images via WhatsApp, an application that only retains its content for seven days; therefore, he had no way of recovering the photographs. [44] The RAD cannot comment on how the said application works. However, it is general knowledge that each user can adjust the settings for saving information contained in applications added to their telephone with the exception of those that aim to produce temporary content, which is not the case with WhatsApp. Therefore, it was the male appellant's responsibility to configure the application's settings to ensure that the files were saved. Furthermore, losing a telephone does not mean that an application's content is lost. In short, the RPD's conclusion is erroneous for the foregoing reasons, not for the reasons for appeal submitted by the male appellant. Finding regarding the appellants' credibility [45] In their memorandum, the appellants submit that the RPD erred when it assessed their credibility and failed to address the evidence presented in support of their refugee protection claims. For the foregoing reasons, the RAD agrees with the appellants. They gave credible testimony that was supported by the evidence on the record. As a result, they should benefit from the presumption in Maldonado,6 whereby sworn testimony given by a refugee protection claimant-in this case, the appellants-is presumed to be true unless there are valid reasons to doubt its truthfulness. In this case, no such reasons were given. All in all, the RAD concludes that the appellants established, on a balance of probabilities, the truthfulness of their allegations as presented in their written accounts and oral testimony. Furthermore, the determinative issue in this case is whether there is an IFA in Mérida or the state of Durango. The RAD concludes that the RPD's decision is erroneous for the following reasons. The appellants cannot relocate within Mexico [46] First, it is important to note that the possibility of an IFA is analyzed using a two-pronged test to determine whether there is a location elsewhere in the country where the claimant-in this case, the appellant-would not have a well-founded fear of persecution and would not be subject to a risk under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA7 and, in light of the circumstances, whether it would be objectively reasonable for the claimant to settle there.8 [47] The RPD correctly identified this test and the two prongs. It proposed the city of Mérida in Yucatan or the state of Durango as IFAs. [48] In their memorandum, the appellants argue that they cannot relocate to those two areas because their assailants have infiltrated the police and their XXXX and because, since they had been teachers, their personal information is recorded in the national registry of teachers and still will be if they wish to work in Mexico. The RPD concluded that the appellants failed to establish their claim, especially since they failed to file evidence corroborating the idea that they were registered in a public registry of XXXX while XXXX in the XXXX XXXX XXXX. [49] When asked about the cartel members' motivations for pursuing the appellants elsewhere in the country, the male appellant stated that they were still looking for the young girl, XXXX, and that his assailants had not wanted them to continue their volunteer work in the region. The RPD did not consider these reasons satisfactory given that, at the hearing, the male appellant stated that he had been told to leave the region because his work had been detrimental to the cartel's activities. As the appellants have left the region, the RPD concluded that the cartel members no longer have the motivation to pursue them. [50] The RPD also noted the fact that the appellants had only had problems on weekends while they were near Playa del Carmen, not while they were on the XXXX XXXX XXXX, where they had lived and worked during the week and which is located XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. After adding this to the absence of death threats against their family members, the RPD concluded that the appellants failed to establish that the cartel members have a real willingness to pursue them in Mérida or the state of Durango or an interest in doing so. [51] In their memorandum, the appellants argue that it is clear from the documentary evidence contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) on Mexico that members of the CJNG can track someone outside of their area of operation, especially for a personal vendetta or by using corrupt law enforcement agents. Given that they claim to have evidence of a politician's complicity with the CJNG, the cartel's motivation to track them has been established. Based on the Federal Court case law, the appellants argue that the RPD failed to consider this evidence, permitting the RAD to intervene. [52] As the RAD previously concluded that the appellants gave credible testimony regarding their allegations, they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that they were personally threatened by their agents of risk, namely, members of the CJNG cartel. Contrary to the RPD, the RAD is of the opinion that they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that they have no safe IFA in Mexico for the following reasons. [53] The evidence, namely the NDP on Mexico, establishes that the city of Mérida and the state of Durango were not under the CJNG's influence at the time of the hearing or at the time of this appeal.9 However, the CJNG is the most powerful cartel in Mexico at this time. It operates in 22 to 27 of the 32 Mexican states. Furthermore, as the appellants noted, it is true that CJNG members are able to pursue actions outside of their territory in order to track individuals for reasons generally related to a personal vendetta or a large debt.10 In this case, the appellants are rightfully citing the first of the two reasons. [54] The appellants were threatened on three occasions: XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2019. On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the male appellant was threatened via a telephone call, whereas on XXXX XXXX XXXX the appellants received death threats in person while they were at the XXXX they went to every week. Therefore, the CJNG members knew exactly where they were week after week. The male appellant stated that, during the call on XXXX XXXX, he was asked to provide information with regard to finding XXXX, whereas on XXXX XXXX, he was told that the CJNG members no longer wanted to see him or his wife in the neighbourhood as their work was detrimental to the cartel's interests. [55] As they left the region, the last reason cannot be used to explain the cartel members pursuing them further. However, on XXXX XXXX, the male appellant received a call threatening him with death from the brother of a boy who had gone to the XXXX XXXX in Playa del Carmen, even though the entire family had relocated to XXXX in the state of Nuevo León, a region that is not traditionally under the CJNG's influence. This time, the male appellant was asked to give back the compromising photographs implicating the XXXX and the cartel. To render the threats credible, the male appellant was sent specific information about his daughters, the minor appellants, confirming that the caller knew their whereabouts. Therefore, the death threats continued beyond the XXXX XXXX XXXX and the region of Playa del Carmen in a city that is not generally under the cartel's influence. In addition, the evidence in the NDP11 confirms the death of the XXXX who, admittedly, may not be directly linked to this case but is mentioned in the appellants' written accounts. In the RAD's opinion, the appellants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that they cannot move elsewhere in the country, because the members of the CJNG have the interest, the motivation and the means to pursue them. [56] In conclusion, the appellants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that if they were to return to Mexico, they would be personally subjected to a risk to their lives. CONCLUSION [57] Pursuant to subsection 111(1) of the IRPA, the appeals are allowed and the RPD's determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA is set aside and substituted by this determination. The appellants are persons in need of protection. (signed) Kristine Plouffe-Malette Me Kristine Plouffe-Malette January 25, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Parminder Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 2 Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 4 SPR-1, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision, at para. 35. 5 SPR-1, RPD decision, at para. 44. 6 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 FC 302 (FCA). 7 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 FC 589 (CA). 8 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (CA). 9 SPR-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Mexico (March 31, 2020), Tab 7.2:? Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations, United States, Congressional Research Service, June S. Beittel, December 20, 2019, R41576; Tab 7.12: Jalisco Cartel New Generation (CJNG), InSight Crime, May 21, 2019; 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. 10 SPR-1, NDP on Mexico (March 31, 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 (IRB), August 15, 2019, MEX106302.E; SAR-1, 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 witness protection (2018-September 2020), IRB, September 21, 2020, MEX200313.E. 11 SAR-1, 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 witness protection (2018-September 2020), IRB, September 21, 2020, MEX200313.E. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-08597 MC0-08598 / MC0-08599 / MC0-08600 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 16 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