Category: Mexico

Citation: 2020 RLLR 26
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 12, 2020
Panel: R. Bebbington
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hannah Lindy
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TB9-14699
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-14767
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000151-0000156

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of [XXX], [XXX], who claim to be citizens of Mexico, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.¹

[2]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.²

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The female claimant alleges that her ex-partner is a member of the Los Zetas cartel in Mexico and she is a victim of domestic abuse. Should she return to Mexico she alleges her life is at risk. The complete allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim (BOC) Form,³ as well as the BOC amendments.⁴

DETERMINATION

[4]       I find, on a balance of probabilities, that you would be subjected personally to a risk to your lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, should you return to Mexico, for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

[5]       The determinative issue(s) in this case are credibility, state protection, internal flight alternative.

Identity

[6]       I find that your identity as nationals of Mexico is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation filed including your passports.

Credibility

[7]       Unless specifically noted in the analysis below, I accept your evidence about your allegations of domestic abuse and the events associated with it that you encountered in Mexico as being generally credible.

[8]       The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Rules require claimants to provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other elements of the claim. I have drawn a negative inference to the credibility of your allegation that the Agent of Persecution (AOP) is a Los Zetas cartel member. You have not provided sufficient persuasive evidence that would reasonably be expected to identify this individual, nor a reasonable explanation why you were not able to obtain them.

[9]       You were questioned about providing documentary proof of the identity of [XXX], the alleged agent of persecution (AOP). The panel acknowledges that the AOP’s name appears on the copy of the birth certificates for your children, but I find beyond this you have provided little support to establish his identity or his identity as a member of the Los Zetas cartel.

[10]     You have provided a series of medical reports from [XXX] 2013,⁵ as well as a series of 2011 police witness statements from neighbours that state that they have witnessed bruising on the claimant.⁶ The witnesses describe the claimant’s partner ([XXX]) as an aggressive and threatening individual, much like his father and friends he associates with. The same documents contain another statement from a neighbour that describes the claimant’s partner as a drunk and aggressive. You have also provided a copy of a lawyer’s letter dated in 2011, that describes a statement from the claimant about the AOP and the abuse she has experienced. The letter states the claimant identified that her partner belonged to the “Zetas” cartel. I would note that this statement is simply based on self-reporting from the claimant.

[11]     The Panel finds upon review of all of the evidence, on balance there is insufficient persuasive evidence to confirm the alleged AOP is a member of a cartel and anything more than a local thug who has abused you. I find this lack of evidence to be unreasonable because of your long-term relationship with this individual, as well as your alleged long term and continued contact with his family members. In addition, your statements at the hearing and in your amended BOC narrative confirmed that all of your neighbours and a number of your friends and relatives have interacted with this individual. Yet, when questioned about obtaining additional affidavits from any of those individuals you testified that you had not considered it. I find on a balance of probabilities that you have not provided evidence to confirm the identity of the AOP as a member of the Los Zetas cartel and that your problems are limited and local to your home area of Oaxaca.

Contact With the AOP

[12]     You have alleged that you continue to receive threatening messages from the AOP. When you were asked to explain how and when you received these messages you stated they came in the form of Facebook messages. I note that you have provided copies of photographs of messages from your telephone or tablet.⁷ Upon examining these messages, the panel notes the name of the individuals on the text is not that of the AOP. I further note that there is no way to ascertain the contact information or identity of the individual who sent the messages. The claimant described that the AOP was using an alias, the panel is unable to assess whether that is true or not. The panel places little evidentiary weight on the copies of photographs of the text messages submitted in evidence. Therefore, I draw a negative inference concerning your credibility by reason of your failure to adduce corroborating documentary evidence as to the association ofyour partner with the Los Zetas cartel and ongoing threats from the AOP.

[13]     You allege that the AOP has been able to locate you on numerous occasions in Mexico. Your testimony and statements confirm that you have maintained social media profiles where you have received messages and threats from the AOP. You have confirmed in your evidence that you have corresponded with the AOP when receiving these messages. You have further confirmed in your evidence that you have maintained contact with the sister and mother of the AOP, yet you state they are not interested in assisting you. I find it reasonable to believe that these interactions could provide the AOP with details as to your location.

Internal flight alternative

[14]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA), exists for you and the male claimant.

[15]     I acknowledge that the complicating concern in this situation is that you have children with the AOP and at this time the AOP has taken custody of the children. In your BOC narrative, as well as your testimony you confirm that should you return to Mexico you will continue to make efforts to contact your children and seek some form of custodial relationship.

[16]     The female claimant testified that in the past the AOP has threatened to kill her or the children if she starts custody proceedings against him. The panel acknowledges Counsel’ s submission that if the female claimant initiates legal proceedings in Mexico, she would have to face the AOP, and he would be able to easily locate her.

[17]     The Federal Court has found that the Board cannot find an IFA is available or reasonable where a condition of its viability is that the claimant does not try to get custody of her children. The Court in Calderon⁸ found it would be “unduly harsh and unreasonable to expect the [claimant] to foreswear any efforts or attempts to re-secure custody of her young children.” That particular case involved a similarly situated claimant from Mexico.

[18]     I find in considering the fact that you will and should pursue custody of your children that there are no other parts of the country, where you would not face a risk to your life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Hence the concept of a viable IFA will not stand.

State Protection

[19]     The objective documentary evidence states:

The Bertelsmann Stiftung mentions in its 2016 Mexico Country Report that there are “thousands of unresolved crimes of violence against women in many regions….” In its world report covering the year 2015, Freedom House notes that perpetrators of domestic violence “are rarely punished.” The report continues to state: “Implementation of a 2007 law designed to protect women from such crimes remains halting, particularly at the state level, and impunity is the norm for the killers of hundreds of women each year.”⁹

[20]     The panel finds that the documentary evidence supports a finding that state protection in respect of gender-based violence in Mexico can be described as limited at best. The literature describes efforts to address a long-standing culture of acceptance of domestic abuse, but despite strong existing legislation protecting women’s rights and preventing violence against women, enforcement varies widely and largely depends on social norms, pointing to potential gaps between the de jure laws and the de facto practices.¹⁰

[21]     The panel finds that in the particular circumstances of this claim that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming.

CONCLUSION

[22]     Based on the analysis above, I conclude that you are persons in need of protection. Accordingly, I accept your claims.

(signed)           R. Bebbington

March 12, 2020

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
³ Exhibit 3, Basis of Claim (BOC) Form, TB9-14699, received June 6, 2019.
⁴ Exhibit 5, BOC Amendments, received February 2, 2020; Exhibit 8, BOC Amendments, received February 3, 2020.
⁵ Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Personal Disclosure, received January 27, 2020, at pp. 25-31.
⁶ Ibid., at pp. 16-24.
⁷ Ibid., at pp. 32-46.
⁸ Calderon, Sonia Blancas v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5367-08), Near, March 8, 2010, 2010 FC 263, para. 17.
⁹ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico (August 30, 2019), Item 5.3, s. 3.
¹⁰ Ibid., Item 5.11, s. Protecting Women from Violence.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 37
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 27, 2019
Panel: David Jones
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: VB8-06002
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000210-000216

— DECISION COMMENCED

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case and I am ready to render my decision for your claims. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for the claims of the principal claimant, namely [XXX] and her minor son [XXX] and the associate claimant, her common-law spouse,  [XXX], who are citizens of Mexico who are seeking refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The principal claimant was appointed as the designated representative of the  minor claimant. I have also reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s guideline on women refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The specifics of the claims are set out in the narrative of the basis of claim forms. In summary, the claimants fear further abuse from the principal claimant’s ex-husband, namely [XXX], who is also the father of the minor claimant.

[4]       The claimants allege that in October 2009 the principal claimant met [XXX]. In [XXX] 2010 the principal claimant found out she was pregnant and decided to get married. During the pregnancy [XXX] started controlling and becoming abusive towards the claimant. On [XXX], 2011 the principal claimant married [XXX] and days after the marriage the abuse got worse.

[5]       I am not going to list all the incidents that the claimant testified to and described in the narrative attached to the basis of claim forms, but I will note that the incidents occurred in Mexico and involved verbal, physical, emotional and sexual abuse. The minor claimant witnessed some of the abuse, and at least in one instance involving [XXX] violently shaking the child. An incident on [XXX], 2014, led to the principal claimant deciding to move out with help from her family. The principal claimant also filed a police report but the response from the authorities was that they expected a husband and wife to solve their own problems.

[6]       [XXX] filed for divorce in [XXX] 2014 and shortly after, the divorce was granted. The principal claimant was awarded custody and [XXX] retained his parental rights. At the end of 2014 [XXX] started dating someone else and the principal claimant barely heard from him for two years. In late 2016 the adult claimants reconnected after they knew each other from junior high school and eventually moved in together. In [XXX] 2016 [XXX] found out about the new relationship and he threatened the principal claimant that he would break them up.

[7]       On [XXX], 2017, the principal claimant went to the U.S. to work to raise money and her sons stayed with her mother. [XXX] started threatening to report the principal claimant to U.S. authorities and to take away their son so the principal claimant decided to return to Mexico. On [XXX], 2017, [XXX] asked for a visit with their son, which the principal claimant allowed. When the principal claimant went to pick up her son [XXX] yelled and physically assaulted the principal claimant and violently shook the minor claimant. [XXX] was angry that the claimants were living together.

[8]       The principal claimant called the police and left with their son and filed a police report. The police again said that they should resolve their problems themselves.

[9]       The associate claimant has also been threatened seven or eight times and has been physically assaulted by [XXX]. For example, on [XXX], 2017, around [XXX]. the associate claimant was approached by [XXX], who yelled things such as, “Leave my wife alone,” and threatened the associate claimant if he did not stop seeing the principal claimant. During this incident [XXX] punched the associate claimant in the stomach, winding him, and then left.

[10]     In early 2018 the associate claimant finished his architectural program and to celebrate his parents paid for him to travel to Canada. While the associate claimant was in Canada [XXX] continued to harass the principal claimant, including at her workplace. On [XXX], 2018, the joint claimant’s family paid for the principal claimant and her son to travel to Canada as well to join the associate claimant.

[11]     Since the claimants have been in Canada [XXX] has continued to try and locate the principal claimant through her family. In the past few months the principal claimant’s brother, aunt and two cousins have all been contacted by [XXX] in his attempts to locate the claimants. [XXX] also started a court action in Mexico regarding custody of the child. The claimants believe through that action, amongst other ways such as through [XXX] wealthy family, [XXX] is able to locate the claimants anywhere in Mexico.

[12]     On [XXX], 2019, the adult claimants were married and the principal claimant is currently seven months pregnant.

DETERMINATION

[13]     I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[14]     The claimants’ identities as citizens of Mexico have been established by the Mexican passports located at Exhibit 1.

Nexus

[15]     The allegations support a nexus to a Convention ground for the principal claimant based on her membership in a particular social group as a woman. The allegations further support a nexus to a Convention ground for the associate claimant and minor claimant based on their membership in a particular social group as members of the principal claimant’s family.

Credibility

[16]     I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant has been the victim of domestic violence, as has the minor child who witnessed the abuse and in at least one instance was violently shaken by his father. In making that finding I am relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness.

[17]     In this regard the claimants testified in a consistent and straightforward manner that was consistent with their basis of claim forms and supporting documents. There were no relevant inconsistencies in the testimony or contradictions between the testimony and other evidence. I find that the claimants are credible witnesses.

[18]     The claimants also provided documents to support their claims. For example, documents found at Exhibit relate to reports to the police of domestic violence toward the principal claimant and the minor claimant. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents, and since they relate to the alleged domestic abuse, I place significant weight on these documents to support the allegations and overall claims.

[19]     I find that [XXX] has threatened the associate claimant and abused the minor claimant due to those claimants being a part of the principal claimant’s family. [XXX] threatened the associate claimant by saying: Get away from [XXX].

[20]     And: I am going to kill you.

[21]     Aside from witnessing the abuse of his mother the minor claimant was also violently shaken by [XXX] when [XXX] was abusing the principal claimant. There is no evidence that [XXX] ever threatened or abused the associate claimant or the minor claimant when he was not related to the principal claimant. As such, I find that the harm toward the associate claimant and the minor claimant are an extension of [XXX] abusive behaviour towards the principal claimant.

[22]     I find that the claimants have established on a balance of probabilities the facts that they have alleged in their claim. The claimants testified that they fear being persecuted because [XXX] will locate and continue to harm them if they were to return to Mexico.

Objective Basis

[23]     The objective basis supports the claimant’s fear of returning to Mexico. Domestic violence continues to be prevalent in Mexico. Numerous reports in the national documentation package found at Exhibit 3 indicate that domestic violence is prevalent in Mexico. For example, NDP items 5.10 state that:

… violence against women in Mexico is a “pandemic.”

[24]     The report goes on to note that 63 percent of women in Mexico have suffered abuse by men, and that most of the violence is at the hands of their partners.

[25]     While the objective evidence indicates that the Mexican government has attempted to enact legislation and policies to reduce the violence faced by women, as noted in NDP 5.2, violence against women continues to be a widespread problem. This is also indicated in the U.S. State report for Mexico at NDP item 2.1. that states:

State and municipal laws addressing domestic violence largely failed to meet the required federal standards and often were unenforced.

[26]     Based on the totality of the evidence before me I find that the claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution if they were to return to Mexico. I further find that the principal claimant’s testimony regarding her ex-husband demonstrates that he has a continuing interest in locating and harming the principal claimant and her family, and therefore they have established a serious forward-looking risk if they were to return to Mexico.

State Protection

[27]     With respect to domestic violence the objective evidence as noted above supports the claimants’ testimony that there is no operationally-effective state protection available to them in their particular circumstances. Numerous items in the NDP indicate the challenges facing Mexico regarding state protection against crime generally. For example, NDP item 7.18 notes that Mexico has an extremely low rate of prosecution for all forms of crime. Prosecutions can take years to complete and that crime is unreported due to the generalized mistrust in authorities.

[28]     Additional information in the NDP item 2.1 regarding violence against women indicate that while:

There were justice centres that provided services, including legal services and protection. However, the number of cases far surpass institution capacity.

[29]     NDP item 5.10 states that:

…violence against women are not properly investigated, adjudicated or sanctioned.

[30]     This report goes on to state that:

… police, do not perform their duties adequately, treating domestic violence as though this was the ‘normal’ state of affairs.”

[31]     I note that this is the response the principal claimant received both times she tried to report violence against her to the police. Based on the evidence I find there is no operationally- effective state protection available to the claimants in their circumstances. As such, the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection.

Internal Flight Alternative

[32]     For the reasons below I find the claimants do not have an internal flight alternative. When determining whether an internal flight alternative is available in Mexico, I must find both that a claimant would not be subject personally to a danger of torture or to a risk of life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed internal flight alternative, and two, the conditions in that part of the country are such at it would be objectively reasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claimant for them to seek refuge there.

[33]     The burden placed on claimants is fairly high in order to show that an internal flight alternative is unreasonable. It requires nothing less than the existence of conditions that would jeopardize their life and safety if they relocated to the internal flight alternative. Actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions is required. The objective evidence supports finding a serious possibility of persecution would exist for the claimants throughout Mexico.

[34]     In a response to information request at NDP item 5.9 on the right of a parent to know the location of their child when a spouse relocates within Mexico indicates that a parent who has parental authority but who does not live with the child has the legal right to know the child’s address and telephone number. The report further indicates that parental authority is automatically granted to both parents, but family judges can order that a parent loses that right.

[35]     With respect to the minor child the ex-husband retained his parental rights in the order granting the divorce and there has been no further orders with respect to parental authority. As such, the ex-husband would have the right to apply through the courts to obtain the child’s address. I find that the ex-husband’s history of behaviour indicates he has a continuing motivation, and given his parental authority, he also has the means to use the Mexican legal system to be able to track the principal claimant throughout Mexico.

[36]     Based on the totality of the evidence I find the claimants have established that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to them. I find that the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Mexico given that the ex-husband has shown a history of continuing to abuse the claimants and his ability to use the Mexican state to assist in locating them.

CONCLUSION

[37]     For the reasons above I determine that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of the Act, given they have established that they would face a serious possibility of persecution and the Board therefore accepts their claims.

[38]     Given I am granting protection under s. 96 of the Act, I find it unnecessary to consider their claims under s. 97.

— DECISION CONCLUDED

Citation: 2019 RLLR 6
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 7, 2019
Panel: Marcelle Bourassa
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: MB8-15797
ATIP Number: A-2020-01124
ATIP Pages: 000046-000052

INTRODUCTION

[1]       La demandeure d’asile Madame [XXX], une citoyenne du Mexique, demande l’asile au titre de l’article 96 et du paragraphe 97(1) de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés.

[2]       Le Tribunal a nommé la demanderesse comme personne vulnérable après avoir examiné une requête en ce sens ainsi que des rapports psychologiques et psychosociaux concernant la demandeure.

[3]       Le Tribunal a accepté comme accommodement que l’on inverse l’ordre des interrogatoires et qu’il soit fourni une interprète de sexe féminin. Le Tribunal a également accepté la présence d’observatrices à titre de soutien psychologique à la demanderesse.

[4]       Tout au long de l’audience et en rendant sa décision, le Tribunal a tenu compte des Directives du Président relatives aux demandeures d’asile qui craignent la persécution en raison de leur sexe.

ALLÉGATIONS

[5]       La demanderesse est allée vivre à [XXX] en [XXX] 2011. Elle gagnait sa vie en travaillant dans différents clubs et discothèques comme serveuse, elle vendait des shooters d’alcool. Elle travaillait toujours dans le même domaine à l’époque où des cartels de drogues tentaient de saisir le contrôle de la vente de drogues et de services sexuels sur ce territoire. Les médias rapportaient des assassinats et des enlèvements de personnes qui tentaient de s’opposer aux projets de ces cartels.

[6]       Madame, quant à elle, travaillait pour un club dont les propriétaires étaient des Chrétiens qui offraient des spectacles de qualité. Ce genre de club était vraisemblablement plus difficile à pénétrer pour ces cartels de vente de drogues.

[7]       La demanderesse a connu un photographe qui a été approché par un cartel pour vendre la drogue et des services de prostitution à la clientèle de ce club. Lorsque celui-ci a refusé de coopérer, il a été enlevé, aucune rançon n’a été demandée, il a été torturé et ensuite relâché.

[8]       Madame a décidé de cesser de travailler dans ce milieu. Elle s’est retrouvée sans emploi pendant quelques mois. Elle a par la suite joint une équipe qui vendait des billets pour ces spectacles, de jour, auprès d’une clientèle qui restait dans un hôtel de luxe.

[9]       Le [XXX] 2017, elle a été abordée à la fin de la journée sur la plage par des gens qui lui ont demandé de coopérer pour vendre de la drogue et des services de prostitution à cette clientèle. La demanderesse a exprimé son refus, elle a été frappée, menacée et a subi des attouchements. À l’arrivée de certains touristes sur la plage, les individus qui l’avaient ainsi traitée se sont enfuis.

[10]     Dès le lendemain, elle s’est présentée pour offrir sa démission. Elle a raison de croire que les agissements des membres de ce cartel étaient connus de la gestion puisque dès son arrivée, les gestionnaires avaient les documents nécessaires pour la congédier.

[11]     Le [XXX] 2017, lorsqu’elle retournait chez elle vers les [XXX], elle a été interceptée dans la rue devant sa résidence. Elle a été enlevée, un mouchoir couvert de produits chimiques a été placé sur son visage, ce qui lui a fait perdre connaissance un certain temps. Lors de cet enlèvement, elle a été violemment rossée, elle a été passée à tabac, elle a été violée et elle a été marquée sur son corps avec des brûlures de cigarette apposées sur ses jambes avec une parfaite symétrie. La demanderesse croit qu’il s’agissait d’une façon de marquer et identifier les femmes qui sont sous l’emprise de ce cartel.

[12]     Elle a ensuite été abandonnée. La demanderesse n’a pas porté plainte auprès des autorités en raison du fait qu’il était bien connu que celles-ci étaient soit complices de ces cartels, ou en avaient peur et refusaient d’agir. Ne voulant pas alerter des policiers complices et par le fait même, s’attirer des ennuis supplémentaires, elle n’a pas été à l’hôpital, elle s’est soignée elle-même comme elle l’a pu.

[13]     Elle a quitté la ville pour aller à [XXX], d’abord chez sa mère et au fil des mois, par la suite, dans son propre appartement. Environ six mois plus tard, elle était prête à tenter de travailler pour y refaire sa vie. Elle a trouvé des emplois dans le domaine immobilier, dans la restauration.

[14]     À la mi-[XXX] 2018, elle a reçu un appel. On lui a dit qu’on l’avait retrouvée et on lui a même précisé ce qu’elle portait ce jour-là. Apeurée, la demanderesse a quitté son emploi, elle a quitté son appartement et elle est retournée chez sa mère. Juste avant son départ du Mexique, elle a pu observer des voitures devant la maison de sa mère. Les occupants de celles-ci semblaient surveiller la maison.

[15]     Elle a quitté son pays le [XXX] 2018, elle est arrivée au Canada le même jour et a demandé l’asile le mois suivant. Depuis son arrivée au Canada, la demanderesse a su qu’en [XXX] 2018, des gens sont entrés chez sa mère, ils l’ont ligotée et frappée, ils l’ont tenue captive pendant plusieurs heures. Ils ont fouillé la maison et ont insisté pour savoir où se trouve la demanderesse.

ANALYSE

Identité

[16]     L’identité de la demanderesse a été établie par la preuve testimoniale ainsi qu’à l’aide de la preuve documentaire déposée au dossier. Celle-ci inclut des photocopies de passeport émis par les autorités mexicaines, les originaux desquels ont été saisis par les autorités d’immigration canadiennes. Le Tribunal est satisfait de la preuve quant à l’identité de la demanderesse.

Crédibilité

[17]     Le Tribunal se doit de mentionner que l’état de détresse de la demanderesse est visible dans son visage et dans ses gestes. Malgré cela, elle a répondu aux questions de son conseil et du Tribunal de façon directe. Elle a offert des détails lorsque cela fut requis. Son témoignage était souvent émotif.

[18]     Elle a également déposé en preuve des documents pour corroborer les emplois qu’elle a eus. Le Tribunal a également en preuve des photos des marques de brûlures de cigarette sur ses jambes auxquelles elle a fait référence auparavant. De plus, la demanderesse a également offert de nombreux détails qui ont été relatés aux intervenantes dans le domaine psychologique dont les rapports sont en preuve. Enfin, la demanderesse a déposé des lettres de différents témoins pour appuyer sa demande.

[19]     Son témoignage était tout à fait conforme au narratif déposé en annexe, son formulaire Fondements de la demande d’asile, et les faits relatés dans les rapports psychologiques et psychosociaux ainsi que dans les lettres d’appui.

[20]     Le Tribunal croit la demanderesse.

Application de l’article 96 de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés

[21]     Les motifs des agents de persécution sont multiples. D’une part, leur but ultime est de faire de l’argent. Ils ont ciblé la demanderesse, la considérant comme étant une femme attirante qui serait capable d’aller chercher une clientèle importante pour la vente de drogues et de services de prostitution.

[22]     Les agents de persécution sont possiblement motivés par un esprit de vengeance ou la volonté de donner l’exemple à d’autres qui auraient pour idée de refuser de coopérer avec eux, mais essentiellement, lorsqu’une personne est violée, c’est en raison du fait qu’elle appartient au groupe social des femmes, qu’elle est victime. Ainsi, le lien avec la Convention est établi.

[23]     Quant à savoir s’il existe une crainte bien fondée prospective, le Tribunal note que bien que la demanderesse ait quitté son emploi et tenté de refaire sa vie à [XXX] qui, par voiture, se trouve à 24 heures de là où les problèmes ont commencé, ses persécuteurs ont fini par la retrouver environ six mois plus tard. Ils l’ont menacée, ils ont surveillé la maison où elle résidait et ils ont fini par traiter la mère de la demanderesse avec violence dans le but de retrouver la demanderesse.

[24]     Le Tribunal estime qu’il est raisonnable de croire qu’elle encourt plus qu’une simple possibilité de persécution si elle devait retourner dans son pays aujourd’hui. Ainsi, l’article 96 trouve son application.

Protection de l’État

[25]     La demanderesse n’a pas demandé la protection des autorités mexicaines pour se protéger. Néanmoins, elle a établi par la preuve documentaire que les cartels qu’elle craint ont su s’imposer, malgré les mesures de protection de l’appareil étatique. Ils ont su faire régner un niveau de violence endémique, soit en s’assurant la corruption de certains policiers ou encore, en faisant régner la terreur au sein de celles-ci.

[26]     Le Tribunal dispose d’une preuve claire et convaincante de l’incapacité ou du manque de volonté de ces autorités de protéger ses citoyens contre la violence exercée par ces cartels, tel que le reflète le niveau épouvantable de viols et de violence qui se produisent en toute impunité.

Possibilité de refuge intérieur

[27]     Le Tribunal n’a pas abordé directement la question de la possibilité de refuge intérieur dans les questions posées à la demanderesse. Néanmoins, la preuve révèle que la demanderesse a tenté de refaire sa vie à [XXX], à plus de 24 heures de route, si on se déplace en voiture. La demanderesse a été retrouvée et menacée à cet endroit, peu après avoir repris le travail.

[28]     Cela porte à croire que ces cartels bénéficient de la complicité de gens dans l’appareil étatique qui ont accès aux banques de données des travailleurs. Quoi qu’il en soit, ils ont réussi à a trouver et n’ont pas hésité à la menacer et même, à faire violence à sa mère pour essayer de la retrouver.

[29]     Le Tribunal estime que la demanderesse a établi qu’il n’existe aucun endroit où elle pourrait vivre normalement, en toute sécurité au Mexique. Dans de telles circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire d’examiner le deuxième volet de la possibilité de refuge intérieur.

CONCLUSION

[30]     Après examen de l’ensemble de la preuve, le Tribunal conclut que Madame [XXX] a qualité de réfugiée au sens de la Convention et par conséquent, accueille sa demande d’asile.