Citation: 2022 RLLR 11
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 10, 2022
Panel: Kari Schroeder
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Jane Campigotto
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: VC1-05967
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-05966
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(the “minor claimant”) as citizens of Mexico who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”)[1].
[2] I have reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution[2] during the hearing and in this decision.
[3] The principal claimant acted as designated representative for the minor claimant. Their claims were previously joined with the principal claimant’s husband, however, due to allegations of domestic violence the claims were separated.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claimant fled Mexico with her husband XXXXand son due to fears of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX). The claimant’s husband owned XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He had been extorted for two years before the principal claimant learned about what was happening. The claimant’s husband left Mexico on XXXX XXXX, 2019 and the claimants went to live with an Uncle in Pachuca. However, when they returned the principal claimant began receiving multiple threats. The XXXX asked about her husband’s whereabouts and threatened to kill the claimants if the husband’s debt was not paid. The claimants left Mexico on XXXX XXXX, 2019. The principal claimant has since been separated from her husband and has full custody of the minor claimant. She fears additional harm from him if she returns to Mexico.
DETERMINATION
[5] I find the claimants are Convention Refugees pursuant to s.96 of the Act, for the reasons that follow.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] The claimants’ identities as nationals of Mexico are established through certified copies of their passports on file.
Credibility
[7] The claimant was a credible witness and I believe what she has alleged in support of their claims. The principal claimant testified in a direct and straightforward manner, even when asked to testify about difficult subjects. There were no material inconsistencies between her testimony and her Basis of Claim form. There were no attempts to embellish her evidence even when given the opportunity to do so. I have documentary evidence to support her claim. I accept that even though her initial reasons for fleeing Mexico were to escape the XXXX cartel due to her husband’s activities, the claimant formulated an additional fear of domestic violence after initiating her refugee claim. It is clear from her testimony and the documents before me that she did not necessarily understand that she was a victim of domestic violence until arriving in Canada. Based on the totality of the evidence, I accept her allegations as credible.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[8] I find there is a nexus in this claim to the Convention Ground of membership in a particular social group, namely women fearing gender-based violence for the principal claimant, and family members of a persecuted person for the minor claimant.
[9] The claimant testified that she became pregnant at a very young age and was essentially forced into a marriage with XXXXby her family and XXXXfamily, both who followed the Jehovah Witness faith. From the beginning of the marriage, XXXX, who is several years older than the claimant, was physically and emotionally abusive as well as unfaithful. The claimant told some members of her family about the abuse but had no recourse. She testified that she tried to tell her mother, who did not really listen to her.
[10] She testified that the physical abuse stopped once she arrived in Canada, but only because XXXXappeared to understand that he could potentially face repercussions from authorities in this country, whereas he could act with relative impunity in Mexico. Indeed, in the transcript the claimant captured of a zoom call with XXXX, he states the following in response to the claimant’s assertion that hitting XXXX as a form of discipline is violence:
“XXXX, that is not violence. That is not violence. Those are your rules and your laws as a Canadian, and honestly, well, you aren’t even a Canadian. [3]”
[11] In other words, it appears that the only reason the claimants were not subjected to physical abuse here in Canada was due to the fact that XXXXwas aware the claimant could call the police. However, according to the claimant’s testimony and witness affidavit before me, emotional abuse continued, as did the withholding of financial support for food and other necessities.
[12] The objective evidence also supports the claimants’ allegations. Sources report that gender-based violence is common in Mexico. In its Concluding Observations on the Ninth Periodic Report of Mexico, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) notes that “the persistence of high levels of insecurity, violence and organised crime in [Mexico] … is negatively affecting the enjoyment by women and girls of their human rights”. Sources report that the average of 10 women who were killed per day in 2019 remained unchanged in [January] 2020. The New York Times also reports that an average of 10 women were killed each day in 2019 and adds that this rate represents an increase from 7 killed per day in 2017.[4]
[13] The 2016 National Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relationships found that 42 percent of married women over 15 years old and 59 percent of separated, divorced, or widowed women have experienced situations of emotional or economic abuse, or physical or sexual violence in their current or previous relationship. The same source reports that 64 percent of the women victims of domestic violence have experienced severe or very severe violence at the hand of their spouse or partner.[5]
[14] According to recent evidence provided by the Board in an RIR report, women are often seen by their intimate partners who are involved in organized crime as an accomplice and “they must participate to varying degrees in their illicit activities, [whether] it be actively in aiding and abetting crimes, or by keeping secrets and providing a minimal amount of support. Women in those situations do not tend to leave their partners unless they feel it is safe or necessary to do so because if they end up returning to them afterwards, the violence always escalates.[6]
[15] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico.
State Protection
[16] In terms of state protection, the federal penal code prohibits domestic violence and stipulates penalties for conviction of between six months’ and four years’ imprisonment. Of the 32 states, 29 stipulate similar penalties, although in practice sentences were often more lenient. Federal law criminalizes spousal abuse. However, state and municipal laws addressing domestic violence largely failed to meet the required federal standards and often were unenforced.[7] Despite passing laws to protect women in 2007, the situation for women in Mexico has worsened. The process of seeking state protection has been described as perpetual bureaucratization, politicization, and revictimization”, and so far very few of the state’s efforts have resulted in a reduction of gender-based violence.[8]
[17] XXXXhas already demonstrated that while he is mindful of Canadian laws, he is aware that he can act with far more impunity in Mexico. I find that state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimants in this case.
Internal Flight Alternative
[18] I also find that the claimants do not have an internal flight alternative in Mexico. Although the principal claimant has a temporary custody order from a Canadian court, there is no evidence that this would be valid in Mexico. XXXXhas told the claimant that if returned to Mexico he would ‘fix things’, which the claimant believes means he would take XXXX away or attempt to seek custody. A Response to Information Request (RIR) issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) also states the following with respect to family court legal proceedings:
Once a family law-related proceeding, including divorce, custody or guardianship, has been initiated before the court, if the address or location of the other parent is unknown and they fail to comply with their obligation to the child, the other parent can request that the judge issue an order to government institutions such as the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social), the Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria), among others, to search in their respective databases on the estranged parent.[9]
[19] I find that the agent of harm in this case has the means and motivation to track the claimants to another location.
[20] Further, the claimant would be returning to Mexico as a young, uneducated single mother. Her father is deceased, and she has never worked outside the home. The objective evidence before me states that low-income single mothers with children under 15 years of age face limited access and enjoyment of the right to food, as well as economic, social and cultural rights due to, among others, the vulnerable income status in which they find themselves, the discrimination they have suffered in different sectors such as social, labour and family, unequal access to employment opportunities, as well as low-paid jobs.[10] I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to relocate in these circumstances.
CONCLUSION
[21] I find the claimants are Convention Refugees pursuant to s.96 of the Act and the Board therefore accepts their claims.
(signed) Kari Schroeder
January 10, 2022
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, November 13, 1996.
[3] Exhibit 5.
[4] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.10: Domestic violence, including treatment of survivors of domestic violence; legislation; protection and support services available, including psychological services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (2017–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 11 September 2020. MEX200311.E.
[5] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.10: Domestic violence, including treatment of survivors of domestic violence; legislation; protection and support services available, including psychological services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (2017–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 11 September 2020. MEX200311.E.
[6] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.
[7] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 2.1: Mexico. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020. United States. Department of State. 30 March 2021.
[8] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.
[9] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.13: Whether a parent may relocate with a child without notifying the other parent, including in situations involving domestic violence and whether this is affected by protection or restraining orders; procedures for a parent to locate their child … Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 13 February 2020. MEX106366.E.
[10] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.7: Situation of single women and of women who head their own households without male support, including access to employment, housing and support services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (Yucatán) (2017-October 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 5 February 2020. MEX106364.E.