2023 RLLR 20

Citation: 2023 RLLR 20
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 12, 2023
Panel: Louis Gentile
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Yelda Zohal Anwari
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TC3-33393
Associated RPD Numbers): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER:  This is the decision for the following claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TC3-33393. 

[2]       I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I’m ready to render my decision orally.  In reaching this decision, the panel has considered Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board. 

[3]       You are claiming to be a citizen of Mexico, and of no other country, and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  

DETERMINATION

[4]       I find that you are a Convention refugee because you face a serious possibility of persecution for the following reasons.

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       You allege the following.  You are a citizen of Mexico and no other country.  You come from a professional family and had a good life in Veracruz with your family and friends. You traveled to Canada in XXXX 2022 to join your ex-partner, R, who had moved here.  In Canada, your partner became physically and emotionally abusive towards you and after multiple incidents of abuse, you reported him to the police and left him.  However, although instructed by the police to cease all contact, he continues to ask others about your whereabouts, and you have overheard him in the past stating that he will “resolve things” with you once you return to Mexico.  His mother has also vowed on the phone that she will harm you when you return to Mexico because of the harm you caused her son. 

[6]       If you return to Mexico, you could be subjected to kidnapping, enforced disappearance, sexual and gender-based violence, or murder by your ex-partner or his family members.  You believe that in Mexico you would not receive adequate protection from the police who do not care about women victims of domestic violence.  You allege that there is no state protection for you in Mexico where many similarly situated individuals have been killed and where feminicide is rampant nor is there any Internal Flight Alternative. 

Identity

[7]       Your personal identity as a citizen of Mexico has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in the exhibits including a certified true copy of your Mexican passport, birth certificate, and national voting card.  I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of nationality have been established. 

[8]       Nexus to section 96 or section 97, I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five (5) Convention grounds, specifically, your membership of a particular social group. Therefore, this claim has been assessed under section 96.

Credibility

[9]       In terms of your general credibility, I found you to be a credible witness and I therefore accept on a balance of probabilities what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your Basis of Claim form.  Your testimony is presumed to be true. You testified in detail and consistently with your Basis of Claim about how you suffered from your ex-partner, and about the threats you received from both him and his family should you return to Mexico. 

[10]     In support of your claim, you provided documents in Exhibit number 6 that includes letters of support from individuals familiar with your situation, photographs of injuries you sustained when R assaulted you on two (2) occasions, and copies of text messages from your ex-partner.   The panel finds these documents to be consistent with your testimony and credible on a balance of probabilities and thus assigns them significant weight. 

[11]     Your testimony was in keeping with your Basis of Claim form and there were no significant inconsistencies or omissions and your testimony about why you could not count on adequate state or police protection anywhere in Mexico was also persuasive and supported by subjective evidence submitted by your counsel in Exhibit number 7.  

[12]     In reaching these findings, the panel has considered and applied Chairperson’s Guideline 4:  Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the IRB, particularly section 6, 7, and 8.   I therefore believe what you’ve alleged in support of your claim, and I find the following to be credible, that on a balance of probabilities, you are a single woman and separated from an abusive partner who is highly motivated and you have credibly established your subjective fear of persecution including fear of being subjected to sexual and gender-based violence or murder. 

Persecution Risk

[13]     The objective documentation supports your allegations that individuals in your circumstances face persecution. 

[14]     One, state and municipal laws addressing domestic violence largely fail to meet the required federal standards an often were unenforced.  According to a survey, 40 percent of women aged 15 and older reported having experienced physical violence at the hands of their current or most recent partner and 23 percent reported having experienced sexual violence in the last 12 months, NDP 2.1.23, page 26. 

[15]     Two, the documentary evidence indicates that impunity and extremely low rates of prosecution remined a problem for all crimes including human rights abuses and corruption.  There were reports some government agents were complicit with international criminal gangs, NDP 2.1.23, page two. 

[16]     Three, the documentary evidence indicates feminicide is rampant in Mexico and there were serious flaws in the investigation of these crimes, NDP 2.1.23, page three. 

[17]     Four, the documentary evidence indicates that human rights organizations asserted authorities at times did not take reports of rape seriously and victims were socially stigmatized and ostracized, NDP 5.3, page 17. 

[18]     Five, the documentary evidence indicates that the Mexican police and security forces have been hobbled by corruption for decades and that this corruption underpins collusion with criminals, NDP 10.2. 

[19]     Six, Mexico is plagued by thousands of missing persons and enforced disappearances annually and impunity largely prevailed on this issue, NDP 2.1.23, pages three to five. 

[20]     Seven, the majority of separated or divorced women, 77.7 percent, have been subjected to attacks of all kinds by their formers or spouses mainly through acts of physical and or/sexual violence together with one of the other types of violence, 44 percent of cases, NDP 5.3, page 13. 

[21]     Your counsel also submitted additional credible evidence describing the plague of domestic violence and feminicide in Mexico in Exhibit number 7.  Consequently, I find that there is a serious possibility that you could face murder and/or targeted gender-based violence should you return to Mexico.  I find that you have established an objective basis for your subjective fear and therefore, you have a well-founded fear of persecution. 

State Protection

[22]     I find that adequate state protection would not be available to you were you to seek it in Mexico.  The objective documentary evidence outlined above indicates that police and state entities do not effectively enforce domestic violence laws and that feminicide is at epidemic levels and often takes place with impunity.  Furthermore, the police are corrupt and sometimes work in collusion with criminal cartels.  States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens except in situations where the state is in a complete breakdown. However, based on the claimant’s personal circumstances, as well as the country documentation referred to above, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.  Adequate state protection is not available to her as she fears persecution from a highly motivated ex-partner and his family in a country where impunity for domestic violence and feminicide is all too common.

Internal Flight Alternative

[23]     I have also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for you particularly in Merida.  The country documentation referred to above indicates that the situation for individuals in circumstances such as yours is the same throughout the country and that you would face a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life anywhere in Mexico as a motivated ex-partner could on a balance of probabilities find you anywhere in Mexico.  The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution of the claimant anywhere in Mexico as the security forces are corrupt and vulnerable to bribery and this would make starting a new life safely and undiscovered by your ex-partner and his family elsewhere in Mexico nearly impossible.

[24]     As such, I find that the IFA test fails on the first prong and there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative for you in Mexico.

CONCLUSION

[25]     Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimant to be a Convention refugee as she faces a serious possibility of persecution because of her membership of a particular social group.  Your claim is therefore accepted. 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———