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