MC0-08441

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-08441 MC0-08442 / MC0-08443 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 8, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Angelica Pantiru Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] Ms. XXXX XXXX, you are acting as the designated representative for your minor daughters. You are citizens of Mexico and you state that you fear criminals who are looking for your husband.1 [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected your refugee protection claims after deciding that you had an internal flight alternative (IFA).2 [3] On appeal, you submit that the RPD erred by concluding that you had an IFA.3 [4] After analyzing your record, I conclude that the RPD did not err. [5] Given this conclusion, your appeal is dismissed. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL [6] The role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is not to conduct a de novo consideration of a claim for refugee protection, but rather to determine whether the RPD erred as alleged.4 I conducted my own analysis of your record, which included reading the transcript of the RPD hearing5 and applying the relevant law. I am of the opinion that it is the correctness standard of review that should be applied.6 A. The errors you allege were made by the Refugee Protection Division [7] The Refugee Appeal Division Rules state that the person who is the subject of the appeal must indicate (i) the errors that are the grounds of the appeal and (ii) where the errors are located in the RPD decision or in the transcript or in any recording of the hearing.7 [8] In your memorandum, you submit that, in its decision, the RPD erred by concluding that you had an IFA.8 [9] Specifically, your arguments as set out in your memorandum are as follows: - The RPD proposed Yucatan and Campeche as IFAs. - You explained to the RPD that while you do not think that the criminals you fear would look for you in Yucatan and Campeche, you would not go to these regions given the crime in your country, because they are not safe, they are drug trafficking territories, and young girls have been kidnapped and have gone missing. - The RPD did not accept your explanations and concluded that it would be objectively reasonable for you and your children to relocate to Yucatan and Campeche. This is an unreasonable decision.9 - You explained at the hearing that the three criminals you fear belong to a criminal organization that attacks shopkeepers, steals merchandise, and demands sums of money in order for the businesses to be able to operate without being robbed by members of the organization. - The RPD considered this information insufficient to establish that members of this criminal organization would look for you and track you down in the locations proposed as IFAs. It therefore erred, since it is completely normal for you not to have knowledge of the gang's illegal activities, and since it is up to the RPD to verify this group's existence and its ability to develop strategic alliances with groups in other regions in the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada's National Documentation Package on Mexico.10 B. Based on my own analysis, the Refugee Protection Division did not err as alleged [10] After conducting my own analysis of your record, I conclude that the RPD did not err as you allege. My reasons are as follows. [11] To conclude that there is an IFA, the RPD or the RAD must first be satisfied that the person claiming refugee protection will not be persecuted or subjected to a risk to their life in that part of their country. Second, the conditions in that part of the country must be such that it would not be unreasonable for the person claiming refugee protection to seek refuge there. Whether an IFA exists is a determinative factor. The onus is on the person claiming refugee protection to prove that they would be persecuted or subjected to a risk to their life in the part of the country identified as an IFA or, alternatively, that it would be unreasonable for them to relocate to this part of their country.11 [12] In light of the case law, I am of the view that you cannot establish that there is a risk to your lives within the meaning of subparagraph 97(1)(b)(ii) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) by referring only to the information in the documentary evidence. Instead, you must establish through your testimony and the documentary evidence that there is a personalized risk.12 [13] In its decision, the RPD considered that you had not established that you would be pursued by the members of the criminal group, who are essentially engaged in theft in northern Mexico City and two of whom are allegedly being held by the Mexican authorities, if you relocated to Yucatan or Campeche, keeping in mind that you stated yourself that they would probably not come after you in these locations.13 [14] Based on my own analysis of your record, the RPD therefore did not err. [15] In its decision, after analyzing your personal profile and your testimony that there is no impediment to your living in Yucatan or Campeche as long as they are safe, the RPD considered that it would be objectively reasonable for you to relocate to the states of Yucatan and Campeche.14 [16] In your testimony, you expressed your subjective fear of moving to either of these regions; however, the issue to be decided by the RPD was whether, objectively speaking, it was reasonable for you to relocate there.15 Based on my own analysis of your record, it therefore did not err. CONCLUSION [17] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination that you and your daughters did not establish that you would have a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of section 96 or that you would be subjected to a risk within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA if you had to return to live in Mexico by relocating to either Yucatan or Campeche. [18] Your appeal is dismissed. (signed) Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette February 8, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Your Basis of Claim Forms and those of your two daughters are reproduced at pages 11 to 60 of the scanned version of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record. 2 RPD reasons and decision, March 13, 2020, pages 5 to 10 of the scanned version of the RPD record. 3 Your memorandum, August 15, 2020, which is reproduced at pages 12 to 18 of the scanned version of your appeal record. 4 Dahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-330-17, Crampton, December 4, 2017; 2017 FC 1102, paragraphs 30 and 31. Kanawati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6486-18, Norris, January 3, 2020; 2020 FC 12, paragraphs 23 and 24. 5 Transcript of the hearing held before the RPD on February 27, 2020, 32 scanned pages. 6 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 7 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, subparagraph 3(3)(g)(ii). 8 Your memorandum, endnote 3, paragraph 15. 9 Ibid., paragraphs 16 to 19. 10 Ibid., paragraphs 23 to 32. 11 Castillo Garcia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-599-18, Boswell, March 21, 2019; 2019 FC 347, paragraphs 25 and 26, citing the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal in Thirunavukkarasu and Rasaratnam. 12 Castillo Mendoza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6696-09, Zinn, June 15, 2010; 2010 FC 648, paragraphs 31 to 36. 13 RPD reasons and decision, supra endnote 2, paragraphs 14 to 18. 14 Ibid., paragraphs 19 to 23. 15 X(Re), No. VB9-08549, Pickel, January 24, 2020; 2020 CanLII 104732 (CA IRB), paragraph 29. Miranda Hernandez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7097-19, Brown, January 4, 2021; 2021 FC 8, paragraph 36. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-08441 MC0-08442 / MC0-08443 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