2023 RLLR 24
Citation: 2023 RLLR 24
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 12, 2023
Panel: Kylee Carreno
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Abraham J. Garza
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: VC2-08210
Associated RPD Numbers): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who claims to be a citizen of Mexico and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]
[2] In conducting the hearing and rendering these reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 which offers guidance on the gender-specific aspects of this claim.[2]
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The full allegations are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) form.[3] In summary, the claimant, from Jalisco state, fears men from the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG) who have threatened to rape and kill her if she does not fulfill their demands of becoming a sexual servant for them. The claimant assisted a young woman escape who had been taken by the CJNG to be a forced sex worker. The cartel members later came to the claimant’s home and shot at her, and she attempted to file a report with police. When the cartel members found out about this report, they threatened that she needed to take the place of the young girl she helped escape by becoming their sex worker, or else they would rape and murder her. She attempted to move to multiple other addresses in a different city, but her location was found out by these men, and she was threatened. She decided to come to Canada and arrived in XXXX 2018. She signed her BOC form and initiated her claim for refugee protection in June 2022.
DETERMINATION
[4] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as per s. 96 of IRPA, as she has established a serious possibility of persecution if she were to return to Mexico.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] I find that the personal identity of the claimant and her identity as a national of Mexico have been established through her testimony and the copy of her passport in evidence,[4] along with a copy of her Mexican birth certificate.[5]
Nexus
[6] I find that the allegations establish a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant, specifically membership in a particular social group as a woman facing gender-related violence due to her allegations of threats from the cartel members to force her into prostitution for their benefit and to rape her if she does not comply. I acknowledge that a significant fear of the claimant’s is murder and forced work for the cartel for losing them money, going against them by reporting to police and helping their kidnapped woman escape, and not complying to their demands. Despite no allegations of previous gender-based violence, I find it necessary, in light of the intersectional approach outlined in the Chairperson’s Guideline 4,[6] to account for the content of these men’s threats which include a gender-based element—forced prostitution and rape. Considering the nature of the claimant’s allegations, including statements made by the cartel that she would have to take the place of the kidnapped woman whom they had taken for forced prostitution, along with the objective evidence outlined below, which I find demonstrates a heightened risk for women in Mexico of gender-based violence and femicide, especially women in contact with authorities and women targeted by cartels, and a general patriarchal attitude throughout the country, I find that the claimant has sufficiently established that she has been and would be targeted due to her gender, and the harm she fears from the alleged threats involves gender-based violence. For this reason, her claim will be analyzed under s. 96 of IRPA.
Credibility
[7] A claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed truthful unless there are reasons to doubt the veracity of their allegations.[7] In this case, the claimant’s testimony was candid, straightforward, emotional, and appeared genuine. The claimant was visibly anxious, fearful, and upset, and spoke throughout the hearing about the impact the alleged events had on her mental health, including periods of XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, which in turn impacted her ability to think clearly when making decisions regarding her safety, such as a failure to change her telephone number in Mexico after months of receiving threatening phone calls or her willingness to remain in Canada beyond the validity of her immigration status without making efforts to legalize her status. While the claimant did not provide medical documentation or a psychological assessment in evidence, I find that the claimant’s allegations regarding her mental health have been credibly established through her testimony and the supporting letters provided at exhibit 4. Consideration of her mental health and trauma response will be discussed further below in my assessment of her subjective fear. Overall, I find the claimant’s testimony to be consistent with a traumatized claimant’s experience while testifying to traumatic events as outlined in the Chairperson’s Guideline 4.[8]
[8] I find that the claimant’s testimony captured the full knowledge she had about the profile of her agents of persecution—various unknown men who have identified themselves to her as CJNG cartel members and who are associated with an original group of 11 men who had come to the XXXX where she worked and were identified to her as members of the CJNG cartel by the kidnapped young woman. She was credible in her testimony that she did not know them on a personal level, including their names or details of their connections or positions in the cartel. I find that the claimant did not attempt to embellish her testimony nor enhance the favourability of her claim, despite opportunity to do so. The claimant’s testimony was generally consistent with the information provided in her BOC form and narrative, and I find that there were no material inconsistencies in her testimony. Overall, I find the claimant to be a credible witness regarding the material facts established below.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
Findings of fact
[9] The claimant provided supporting documents at exhibit 4, and I find no reason to doubt the genuine nature of these documents and give them full weight in establishing the facts outlined below. All letters provided by the claimant are signed and accompanied by respective identification documents. I find that these documents and the claimant’s testimony corroborate her allegations as follows:
· The claimant testified that in XXXX 2018 she was working at a XXXX as a XXXX when she encountered a group of 11 men with a scared young woman. She testified that she spoke with another XXXX about the young woman’s behaviour, as the young woman would not lift her gaze and appeared sad and manipulated, and they believed it was strange that this woman was at a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with these 11 men. She testified that when the young woman went to the washroom accompanied by one of these men, the claimant entered the washroom and the young woman became desperate, begging for help and saying she had been kidnapped. The claimant stated that she did not have any doubt about helping the woman escape, that it happened very quickly, and they exited the XXXX together through a back window of the bathroom. The claimant testified that she drove the woman as requested to the bus terminal about 25 minutes away from the XXXX, and during this drive the woman told the claimant that she had gone to meet her boyfriend, but her boyfriend did not show up and the cartel members did instead, taking her and telling her that she was going to pay them for what her boyfriend owed them. The claimant’s testimony is consistent with her documentary evidence, which includes a pay slip and photograph of a name tag from a XXXX consistent with the name of that identified in her testimony, along with letters from her mother, aunt, uncle, and two friends speaking of their knowledge of the claimant’s assistance to this young woman. I find that the claimant has credibly established the abovementioned facts of this incident;
· The claimant testified that the young woman told her directly that these men were members of the CJNG cartel. While they did not have any identifying features as members of this cartel, they appeared rough, and their clothing appeared as if they were carrying weapons. Further, the trucks they were driving called attention, as they were black and polarized. She stated that when she received threatening phone calls from many different men between the time of this incident and when she left Mexico in XXXX 2018, the men would identify themselves verbally as members of the CJNG cartel. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has credibly established that these men are members of the CJNG cartel;
· The claimant testified that when she arrived back at her home, she parked her car and was walking to her front door when she saw a pick-up truck parked a few houses away from hers, so she immediately returned to her vehicle and attempted to flee as quickly as possible. One of the men approached her quickly and tried to open her car door, then he shot at her and broke the back and side windows of her vehicle. While she did not recognize his face, she recognized his vehicle and his way of dressing as similar to the men at the restaurant she had encountered earlier. The claimant provided a letter from her friend corroborating that she was told by the claimant details of this incident immediately after it occurred. I find that the claimant has credibly established the facts of this incident;
· The claimant testified that she attempted to file a police report on two occasions, and on both occasions received threatening phone calls immediately after leaving the station from men identifying themselves as members of the CJNG cartel and stating that they knew she was reporting to police. Further, she stated that she received phone calls from these men after she went to the clinic and each time she moved to a different address, each time stating that they knew where she was and identifying her location. The claimant has provided letters from a friend and her Mexican lawyer corroborating her attempts to file a police report, along with letters from a friend and her mother corroborating that the cartel continually knew the claimant’s location in Mexico. I find that the claimant has credibly established the abovementioned facts;
· The claimant testified that immediately after she left the police station when she first attempted to report and received the first threatening phone call, she relocated to her best friend’s home in Ciudad Guzman—a city 30 minutes away from where she had been living in Zapotlan—and she stayed there for 3 months. She then relocated to her aunt’s home in Ciudad Guzman for one month, and later to another friend’s home in Ciudad Guzman where she stayed until she came to Canada in XXXX 2018. There are letters from her two friends and her aunt corroborating that the claimant stayed in their homes during the time periods testified by the claimant. I find that the claimant has credibly established that she moved cities and moved homes 3 times in Mexico;
· The claimant testified that after the first threatening phone call she received in XXXX 2018, she continued to receive threatening phone calls until she left Mexico in XXXX 2018. She stated that at the start, she would answer these phone calls, but then she stopped answering them. These phone calls were made by different men, as identified by the claimant through different voices, all stating that they were with the CJNG cartel and they do not forget. The men stated that she made them lose a lot of money, she will work for them no matter what or they will kill her, that they will torture her, that they would rape her, that they would cover her in acid, and that they were going to prostitute or pimp her. She stated that she did not change her telephone number until she arrived in Canada, as she was in a bad mental state at that time and “her head was not helping her” so she never thought of changing her phone number. She stated that the men calling her did not ever inform her of how they had obtained her phone number, address, or location, and she believed they had the power to find out any information about her. I have applied the guidance offered in the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 at section 7.7 that states “the assessment of whether an explanation is reasonable is contextual” and at section 5.1 that states “trauma may completely overwhelm an individual’s ability to cope with, or integrate the ideas and emotions involved in that experience…and can elicit intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair”. In light of the claimant’s description of her mental health during this time and her limited capacity to cope with the threat she was facing, including a belief that she was helpless against these men’s ability to find out information about her, I find that the claimant’s failure to change her phone number is not indicative of a lack of subjective fear, as she was taking alternative actions to protect herself to her capacity, including moving homes each time she believed these men knew her location, attempting to seek state protection on two occasions, and stopping answering these phone calls when she knew they were from these men. I find that the claimant has credibly established the content of the threats she was receiving, and that she was receiving them from XXXX-XXXX 2018 via telephone;
· The claimant testified that she hired a lawyer she had heard about from family and friends to save her life in XXXX 2018. He had agreed to conduct an investigation for her, which was continued when the claimant was in Canada. I find that the letter in evidence from the lawyer corroborates this allegation which I find has been credibly established;
· The claimant testified that she decided to leave Mexico because she had tried to keep her mother at a distance from these threats, but in XXXX 2018 her mother began receiving threatening phone calls from these men and the claimant believed if she left the country until the men forgot about her, her family would be safer. Since being in Canada, these men have continued speaking with her aunt, her mother, and her neighbours, and they have gone to the places that she lived, but she has not personally had any communication with these men. While these men threaten to harm the claimant and demand to know her whereabouts when speaking with these individuals, the threats are always directed towards the claimant and they have not threatened or harmed her family, friends, or neighbours personally. She stated that the last time she heard that these men were looking for her was in XXXX 2022 when her aunt was approached at her home by men who stated that they knew the claimant was out of the country, asked where she was, and stated that they were from the CJNG and they never forget. Letters from the claimant’s mother, aunt, neighbours, uncle, and lawyer in evidence all corroborate these allegations and speak of their experiences of being approached and threatened by these men. I find that the claimant has credibly established that these CJNG men have contacted her family, friends, neighbours, and lawyers looking for her since she has arrived in Canada, as recently as XXXX 2022.
Failure to claim protection and delay in claiming protection in Canada
[10] The claimant testified that she has travelled extensively to countries in North America, Europe, and Africa, with her most recent travel being in 2017. She stated that at the time of these travels, she did not have any fear of returning to Mexico. I find that, since the incident from which the claimant’s fear arises began in XXXX 2018, there is no negative inference to be drawn regarding her subjective fear for failing to claim refugee protection in any of these countries, as the claimant was not at risk in Mexico at this time.
[11] The claimant travelled to Canada in XXXX 2018 and she signed her BOC form in July 2022. She entered Canada on a visitor’s visa that provided her with legal visitor status until XXXX 2019. She stated that she made the decision to find a way to remain in Canada in XXXX 2021 after she received a letter from her Mexican lawyer stating that he could no longer assist her, that there was nothing to be done for her protection in Mexico, that he could not obtain copies of the police reports she attempted to file, and that he had to close his office in Ciudad Guzman due to threats from the CJNG cartel in relation to the claimant. A copy of this letter is provided at exhibit 4. She stated that this news deeply impacted her mental health and she could not do anything for a few months because of her XXXX and XXXX. Once she felt capable of taking action, it took time to get an appointment with a lawyer, especially a lawyer she felt comfortable talking to in her language. She found her lawyer in XXXX 2022, at which time she learned about refugee protection.
[12] She stated that from the time her immigration status expired in XXXX 2018 until she received this letter from her lawyer in XXXX 2021, she was waiting to hear news from her lawyer that she could return to Mexico. She stated that her intention when she came to Canada was not to leave her family, friends, and country permanently, and she did not wish to stay in Canada, so she did not ever apply to extend her status or seek options of how to stay in Canada. She did not know about refugee protection until she met her current lawyer in XXXX 2022, and when she arrived in Canada she was XXXX and trying to survive from churches and food banks. While I find that a willingness to remain in Canada without legal immigration status for over 3 years without seeking options or filing an application to legalize her status is negligent, I also refer to guidance from Guideline 4 which states at section 4.4 that an incorrect assumption members should avoid when assessing claims involving gender-based violence is that “once in Canada, a person who has experienced gender-based violence will automatically seek out counselling or assistance in overcoming trauma”. I have considered the claimant’s mental health, her belief that her Mexican lawyer would help her find a way to safely return to Mexico, and her struggles to survive in Canada during this period. Furthermore, I note that the RPD’s assessment of persecution is forward-facing, and as outlined below, I have found that the totality of the evidence credibly establishes forward-facing persecution. I, therefore, do not draw a negative inference regarding the claimant’s forward-facing subjective fear from her delay in claiming protection in Canada after entering in XXXX 2018.
Conclusions on subjective fear
[13] Based on all the evidence before me, I find that the claimant has established a subjective fear of persecution from members of the CJNG cartel if she were to return to Mexico.
Objective basis
[14] According to the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico, last updated September 29, 2022,[9] cartel and gang violence are serious problems throughout Mexico. Freedom House reports in 2022 that Mexicans are subject to the threat of violence at the hands of multiple actors, including individual criminals, criminal gangs that operate with impunity, and police officers who are often susceptible to bribery.[10] NDP item 7.8 states that criminal violence has become highly intense, diversified, and popularized over the past two decades in Mexico, with widespread violence and ungovernability affecting almost all Mexican states. A missing-persons registry—which continues to grow despite increased government efforts in recent years—reflects an epidemic of enforced disappearances.[11]
[15] It is objectively well-established that a high percentage of police officers in Mexico work in partnership with criminal organizations,[12] and that the CJNG is the leading cartel in Mexico, “the ‘only cartel’ with a national presence”, and that it has the “‘most operational capacity’ in the country”.[13] NDP item 7.12 states that although the CJNG has suffered some setbacks due to internal divisions and splintering, the group has maintained its dominance and continues expanding. NDP item 7.18 states that the CJNG operates in 27 states and has alliances with other cartels. The Government of Mexico considers the CJNG to be a consolidated, well-organized criminal group with solid financial networks and diverse criminal activities with a supranational presence through its own presence or through allies in most of the country’s states. InSight Crime reports that the CJNG is “truly the dominant criminal actor” in Jalisco, Nayarit, Colima, Veracruz, Guanajuato, Puebla, Querétaro, Hidalgo, and the Lázaro Cárdenas port in Michoacán.[14] This source also identifies that the CJNG extorts individuals and uses “extreme violence” and bribes to steadily expand control of the drug trade.[15]
[16] Drug cartels such as the CJNG engage in extreme forms of violence as a means of maintaining power, such as displaying dead and mutilated bodies to terrorize the public and ensure compliance with their demands.[16] Further, “those who betray or steal from the cartel are dehumanized and portrayed as ‘rats’ who must pay with a gruesome death for their betrayal”; examples of what they consider to be betrayal include reporting the cartel to police or failing to pay a bribe or quota.[17] NDP item 7.15 states that motivations for cartels to track people throughout Mexico include a personal vendetta or a large debt. The claimant’s credible testimony has established that the CJNG members have directly told her that they will make her pay for the debt she owes them and for reporting to police.
[17] The Mexican NDP also indicates high levels of violence against women, widespread patriarchal attitudes about women, rising rates of femicide, and mistreatment of women by police officers.[18] The rate of femicides in Mexico had increased by 137 percent over the last five years, while homicides have comparatively increased by 35 percent over the same periods.[19] Sources indicate that the number of femicides committed by organized crime groups is “on the rise” with some analyses indicating that 63 percent of femicides reported in March and April 2020 were connected to organized crime.[20]
Conclusions on well-founded fear of persecution
[18] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution if she were to return to Mexico.
State Protection
[19] Except in situations of complete breakdown of the state apparatus, the state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. I find that the claimant has rebutted this presumption, as her testimony and the objective evidence demonstrate that the state will not provide her with adequate protection.
[20] The claimant went straight to the police station in Zapotlan when the cartel members shot at her vehicle in XXXX 2018. She stayed at the station for 2-3 hours, the police wrote down her statement, and they told her because there was a staff turnover, there was no one available to help her at the time so she should come back the following day. They did not offer her any protection at that time, and when she left, she was immediately contacted on her phone by the CJNG men. She did not return to the station the next day, as she believed the police had given the CJNG men her information and told them she had filed a report, and she immediately went to live with her friend in Ciudad Guzman. In XXXX 2018 she attempted to file an addendum to her initial report at the same police station, as there were many updates she wished to report, such as the harassing phone calls and threats she and her mother had received. She stated that no one would assist her and they kept telling her to wait. She eventually filed her addendum with the police, but no one helped her further. She was told to go home and that they would call her to return for further assistance, but she never received any call from them. They did not provide her with a copy of the report on either occasion. As she had obtained a lawyer at this time, she did not follow up on the reports again, as the lawyer had attempted to obtain copies of the report and stated that he was unable to do so. This allegation is corroborated by the lawyer’s letter at exhibit 4, which states that he believes the police did not ever file the reports due to interference from CJNG associates. While the claimant did not have any knowledge of why the lawyer believes that these reports were not filed or why he believed this was the result of CJNG interference, she credibly established that she did not receive copies of these reports, follow-up from police as stated, nor protection from police.
[21] NDP item 7.18 states that “various police forces in Mexico…lack human and material resources in order to properly investigate crimes”. This item also states that “93.2 percent of all crimes committed were either not reported or not investigated” with a large amount of blame placed on police, as citizens saw reporting as “a waste of time”, they had a “lack of trust in authorities”, there were “difficulties and a [long reporting] process”, authorities had a “hostile attitude”, and they feared “being victims of extortion”.[21]
[22] More than half of Mexican citizens saw both police and the Attorney General’s office as corrupt.[22] According to the BTI 2020 “[a]s a consequence of impunity and the fact that official forces are in many cases involved in criminal acts, people who are victims of crime rarely report the crime to the police. People are afraid that as the police may be involved, they will be victimized again or because they feel it is useless”.[23] NDP item 10.2 outlines a high risk of police corruption in Mexico, that “corruption…underpins state collusion with criminals”, and that in most Mexican states, local police “have been infiltrated by organized crime”. This source states that this includes police at all levels—federal, state, and local—and that entire police forces have been disbanded, suspended, or arrested due to the penetration of organized crime and corruption. Due to this reality, there is no trust between police forces, and this leads to a lack of communication between different levels of security forces due to the infiltration of drug cartels.[24] Police forces are often paid bribes by cartels and are known to have participated in kidnappings and murders for cartels.[25] When violent crimes are reported, according to NDP item 7.18, “if a victim or their family does not pay for the police investigators’ expenses, no arrest will be made”.
[23] NDP item 10.2 states that there have been national anti-corruption measures taken, with bodies under the National Anti-Corruption System created for civilians to report corruption at the municipal, state, and federal levels. However, this source also indicates that despite passing the law governing these bodies in 2016, as of 2018 “several important aspects” had not been implemented and systems were not yet in place. Further, despite the ability to report corruption to the National Human Rights Commission, citizens were highly unlikely to report due to fear of reprisals and a belief that it was a waste of time.[26] In the unlikely instance that the claimant was to report to higher authorities that were willing to take her report, she could become involved in a court case or be at heightened risk of reprisals, and the NDP evidence indicates that the witness protection program in Mexico “did not provide protective measures to all the witnesses and other individuals implicated in criminal trials”, that it does not guarantee sufficient protection, and that it was recently scaled back, leaving many individuals without protection despite the continued expectation for them to testify against cartel members or corrupt authorities.[27]
[24] Compounding the above, the country condition documents indicate that laws addressing violence against women are not effectively enforced. When discussing police treatment of women, item 5.5 states that “in a context where social constructs are based on a predominantly patriarchal culture, women…face particular discrimination simply because they do not have a male partner. Women in Mexico are expected to have a male partner; if they do not, this is seen as suspicious”. Sources indicate that there has been “systemic impunity” in terms of how gender-based violence is addressed, and note the “complicity, indifference, and mismanagement of cases” involving violence against women. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, amongst other sources, has emphasized that there are “deep-rooted institutional, structural and practical barriers” which continue to hinder access to justice for women, including that officials within the criminal justice system, including law enforcement officers, hold “discriminatory stereotypes” and “limited knowledge” of women’s rights.[28]
[25] I have considered the country conditions noted above, that the agents of persecution are members of the CJNG cartel, and the claimant’s testimony that she did not receive any protection after two attempts to report to police, that copies of her reports could not be obtained by the lawyer, and that exposing herself by reporting to police increased the threats she was receiving from the agents of persecution. I find that state protection is inadequate at an operational level and that it would not be forthcoming to the claimant in her circumstances.
Internal Flight Alternative
[26] For an internal flight alternative (or IFA) to be viable, it must satisfy both prongs of a two-prong test on a balance of probabilities. I must assess whether there is another location in Mexico in which the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of harm, and whether it would be reasonable to expect her to move there.[29] At the start of the hearing, Mexico City, Merida, and Oaxaca were proposed as potential IFA locations.
Motivation
[27] As established above, the CJNG men directly identified the motivation for finding and harming the claimant as a large debt owed to them, of betraying them, of the claimant having to take the place of the woman she helped escape, and of reporting to police; these were outlined in the objective evidence as known reasons for the CJNG to track an individual throughout Mexico and are personal in nature. The claimant credibly established that the CJNG men continued to harass her through phone calls from XXXX 2018 until she left Mexico in XXXX 2018, and they continued to track her movement and location, which they accurately informed her of on these phone calls. Further, the claimant credibly established above that since being in Canada, her family members, friends, neighbours, and lawyer continued to see unknown men around her home and the homes of the individuals she stayed with in Mexico when hiding, to be asked about the claimant and her whereabouts, to be informed that the CJNG men knew the claimant was outside of Mexico, and to receive threatening phone calls about the claimant, as recently, to the claimant’s knowledge, as XXXX 2022.
[28] Based on the totality of the evidence relating to the claimant’s profile, the incidents that sparked the CJNG members’ motivation to find and harm the claimant, the serious nature of the threats against her, and these men’s demonstrated persistence in knowing her location 5 years after the initial incident, including contacting her continually when she was in Mexico, threatening her friends and family, and going to her home and the homes of her family members, I find that it has been established that there is an ongoing motivation to find and harm the claimant. For the totality of these reasons, I find that there is a serious possibility that the CJNG men would be motivated to find and harm the claimant anywhere in Mexico.
Means
[29] The claimant testified that the moment she lands in Mexico, whether that is in any of the IFA cities or elsewhere, these men from the CJNG will know. Further, she fears with that any service she would access such as a hospital or clinic or government service, she would be registered in a system, and because these men know her name, they would be able to find her. She stated that she does not know more about a central registration system in Mexico, but she believes these men have access to information due to the history of them obtaining her and her family’s phone numbers, finding out information about the lawyer that was helping her, knowing when she was at the police station and medical clinics previously, and where she was living each time she moved.
[30] NDP item 3.5 confirms that personal information, including an individual’s address, is included within the electoral database when an individual obtains a voter ID card, which is considered to be the national identity document and the most popular identification card in Mexico.[30] Further, individuals part of the electoral registry are obligated to report any changes of address to their local registry office within 30 days of their move.[31] While legally this information is contained within a confidential database accessible by only the electoral committee and political parties for election purposes, NDP item 3.5 states that this information can be readily obtained through bribes, through purchase on the black market, or online leaks. I find that, as outlined above, the level of corruption between varying levels of authorities in Mexico, as well as, as outlined below, the information accessible to cartels through their networks supports the claimant’s allegations that these CJNG men could have access to her personal information, such as her address, through a national database system like the electoral registry.
[31] NDP item 7.8 states that “if a criminal group has ‘very strong motivation to find and retaliate against a certain person,’ ‘especially if the criminal group were one of the more powerful groups in Mexico’ and/or ‘a group with indications of having cooperation from relevant authorities,’ then ‘[the ability to track or retaliate against a certain person] would be a reasonable concern to have’”. This source also states that if organized crime groups in other parts of Mexico are interested and willing to retaliate against people relocated in Merida, Campeche, Cabo San Lucas or Mexico City, they could do it easily.[1] An RIR at item 7.15 indicates that, “cartels use family networks and private investigators to track people, as well as property records in the US and Mexico and placing GPS trackers on cars.” A source in this RIR also stated that “a personal vendetta could motivate a gang to track someone outside their area, and that gangs can use ‘corrupt law enforcement agents’ to obtain information about people they pursue”.[2] Item 7.8 states that “criminal groups use phone and cellphone companies” and that they may bribe these companies to track phone accounts, messages, and social networks of relatives to find targeted individuals in hiding. Further, it is reported that “corrupt Mexican officials have helped drug cartels acquire spyware ‘which can be used to hack mobile phones’”.[3] I find that the history of these men finding out information about the claimant, her family, and her associates, their profiles as members of the CJNG, and the objective evidence outlined above establish that these men would have the means to find the claimant in the IFA locations or anywhere in Mexico.
[32] As I have found that these men from the CJNG cartel have the motivation and means to find the claimant throughout Mexico, and it is therefore not safe for the claimant to return anywhere in Mexico, including the proposed IFAs, there is no need to consider whether her relocation to an IFA location would be reasonable. I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Mexico.
[33] Based on the information before me, I find that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in Mexico.
CONCLUSION
[34] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accept her claim.
(signed) Robert Cox
December 28, 2023
[1] Exhibit 3, item 7.8.
[2] Exhibit 3, item 7.15.
[3] Exhibit 3, item 7.8.
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board, updated July 18, 2022.
[3] Exhibit 2.
[4] Exhibit 1.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Chairperson’s Guideline 4, section 6. This guideline at section 6 states that “members should consider how an individual may face distinct forms of harm, risk, or vulnerability based on their identity factors and lived experience”.
[7] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302, 31 N.R. 34 (CA).
[8] Chairperson’s Guideline 4, section 7.
[9] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, updated September 29, 2022.
[10] Exhibit 3, item 2.8.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Exhibit 3, item 10.2.
[13] Exhibit 3, item 7.7.
[14] Exhibit 3, item 7.7.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Exhibit 3, item 7.16.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Exhibit 3, item 2.1.
[19] Exhibit 3, item 5.20.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Exhibit 3, item 10.2.
[24] Exhibit 3, item 10.2.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Exhibit 3, ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Exhibit 3, item 5.20.
[29] Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 2003 FC 1075.
[30] Exhibit 3, item 3.5.
[31] Ibid.