2023 RLLR 22

Citation: 2023 RLLR 22
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 1, 2023
Panel: Nour El-Sabah Farhat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Keyork
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TC3-36199
Associated RPD Numbers): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: These are the official reasons for the decision.

Reasons for Decision 

[2]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant is a citizen of Mexico, claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The details of the claimant’s allegations are fully set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form narrative. In short, the claimant alleges that she fears for her life and her safety by her abusive ex-husband, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, if she is to return to Mexico.

DETERMINATION

[4]       Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that the claimant has satisfied the burden of establishing a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, based on her membership in a particular social group, as a woman who is a victim of domestic violence or gender-based violence.

[5]       In fact, the Convention refugee grounds of membership in a particular social group set out in section 96 of the IRPA, and the refugee Convention, includes individuals fearing gender-based persecution.

[6]       In deciding this claim. The Panel has taken into consideration and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4, gender considerations in proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]       With respect to the issue of identity, the claimant’s identity has been established on a balance of probabilities through a passport issued by the United States of Mexico, copy of which was provided to the Board.

Credibility

[8]       When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption of truthfulness, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, the claimant has been consistent and straightforward in her testimony. She has provided spontaneous details in support of her allegations.

[9]       Further, the claimant’s testimony was consistent with her Basis of Claim form and the evidence she provided to the Board. The Panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness, and therefore believes what she has alleged in support of her claim.

[10]     Based on the credible testimony and overall evidence, the Panel makes the following findings of fact.

[11]     The claimant met her husband in 2011. Since the beginning, the claimant’s husband’s behaviour toward the claimant was violent and abusive. The claimant wrote in intricate detail multiple abuse situations she had endured from her husband in her narrative. Despite the abuse, the couple got married in XXXX 2018.

[12]     After the marriage, the abuse continued and worsened. In 2020, the abuse started getting physical.

[13]     Since 2019, XXXX was working as the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Queretaro. Hence, he has a lot of political connections, and connections with the state authorities.

[14]     On XXXX XXXX, 2021, the claimant and her husband arrived in Montreal, Canada. The abuse continued. In XXXX 2021, the claimant went to the police station in Montreal to file a complaint against her ex-husband for abuse. XXXX was arrested, and a restraining order was ordered by the court.

[15]     In XXXX — in XXXX 2021, the claimant learned that her ex-husband left Canada. According to the claimant, she cannot go back to her country because she could be killed by her husband, and that the state authorities will not protect her if any harm happened to her. In fact, XXXX told the claimant many times in the past that it would be very easy and inexpensive to order someone to be disappeared, and to be killed. He also repeatedly, said to the claimant that she could never hide from him.

[16]     I am going to mute the microphone because there’s a lot of — sorry, I muted you. The claimant provided substantial documentation to corroborate her allegations regarding her marriage and the abuse that followed. The claimant presented reliable evidence, including police reports detailing the domestic abuse, medical reports, and letters from family and friends.

[17]     On the face of it, the Panel has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the extensive documentary evidence the claimant disclosed, and finds on a balance of probabilities that the evidence supports and corroborates the allegations of the claimant. The Panel therefore assigns the evidence full weight in corroborating the claimant’s core allegations regarding the abuse she suffered from her ex-husband.

[18]     The Panel finds that the claimant’s experience of gender-based violence amount to persecution. The Panel considered the seriousness of the harm, the cumulative acts of the agent of persecution, and the fact that the harm was repetitive. The Panel therefore finds that the claimant has a subjective fear of persecution if she returns to Mexico on a balance of probabilities.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[19]     The Panel finds that the objective evidence supports the claimant’s subjective fear and establishes a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant if she is forced to return to Mexico. The Panel’s reasons are as follows. According to the objective documentary evidence, violence against women is widespread in Mexico. In fact, some sources indicate that the patterns of widespread gender-based violence against women and girls across Mexico, including physical, psychological, sexual, and economic violence, as well as the increase in domestic violence. Feminicides especially are persistent.

[20]     The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women regrets that the persistence of high levels of insecurity and violence is negatively affecting the enjoyment by women and girls of their human rights. Moreover, access to justice is hindered for women by the stereotypical interpretive criteria, and judicial bias, in the resolution of cases and the lack of accountability of judges who fail to comply with gender-sensitive jurisdictional performance.

[21]     Significant human rights issues included credible reports of acts of corruption by authorities were reported, including the corruption of police officers and judge.

[22]     The Panel therefore finds that there is an objective basis for the claimant’s subjective fear. The Panel also finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants fear of persecution is objectively well-founded.

State Protection

[23]     Despite the several efforts that have been made by the state of Mexico to improve access to justice for women, the Panel is concerned, however, that deep-rooted institutional, structural, and practical barriers continue to hinder women’s access to justice, in light of the documentary evidence I reviewed above.

[24]     According to the objective evidence, state and municipal laws addressing domestic violence were often unenforced. A report notes that corruption, including within the armed forces and federal police, underpins state collusion with criminals. In the case at hand, the claimant’s ex-husband was very well connected with the authorities of the country as the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[25]     Consequently, the Panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection of the state in these circumstances, and that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming for the claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[26]     The Panel identified the city of Merida as a potential viable IFA location. The Panel finds the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA location, and that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to relocate to the proposed IFA location.

[27]     The reasons are as follows. The evidence before the Panel demonstrate that the claimant’s ex-husband is sufficiently motivated to look for the claimant, and has sufficient means to do so. As for his motivation, the Panel is of the opinion that it is more likely than not that after he was arrested in Canada because the claimant reported him, XXXX would be interested in revenge if the claimant return back to Mexico.

[28]     His motivation notwithstanding, the Panel finds that the agents of persecution does have the means to locate the claimant in the proposed IFA location. The claimant testified credibly that her husband — that her ex-husband has very good connections with political and security authorities. He is a XXXX, was working as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Queretaro. He was working closely with local authorities and police departments. The Panel considers on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility that XXXX will use his network in Mexico to seek revenge from the claimant following his arrest in Canada.

[29]     Based on all the evidence before it, the Panel finds that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution if she relocates to the proposed IFA, and that it would be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances to ask the claimant to relocate to the proposed IFA.

CONCLUSION

[30]     For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Accordingly, her claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———