2023 RLLR 32
Citation: 2023 RLLR 32
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 20, 2023
Panel: Victor Sokolov
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Karim Escalona
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TC3-14073
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the claimant”) is a citizen of Mexico. The claimant is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).[1]
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The full allegations are contained in the Basis of Claim (“BOC”).[2] In summary, the claimant alleges that he fears persecution in Mexico as a journalist who is interested in reporting on corruption, criminal activity and the collusion between criminal organizations and the government.
DETERMINATION
[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[4] The claimant has established his personal and national identity by presenting a copy of his Mexican passport.[3]
Nexus
[5] I find that there is a nexus to the Convention based on the claimant’s allegations around his political opinion. The claimant is critical of widespread government corruption and the collusion between the government and criminal organizations. Further, I find that the claimant is a member of particular social group as a journalist.
Credibility
[6] I find the claimant to be a credible witness, so I accept the core allegations. In making my findings, I am guided by the principle that there is a rebuttable presumption of truthfulness which applies to oral testimony[4].
[7] The claimant’s testimony was spontaneous and sufficiently detailed, while there were no notable discrepancies within the testimony or between the testimony and the documentary evidence which went to the core of the claim.
[8] The claimant testified in a credible manner on how he became interested in the issues of government corruption and collusion between the cartels and the government. The claimant stated that these issues are the biggest and most important problems Mexico faces. The claimant stated that he wants his professional work to benefit society. The claimant offered detailed testimony on the crime situation in Mexico, the government inadequacy in addressing the crime issue and the corruption within the government.
[9] The claimant testified that he had worked as a XXXX for a XXXX XXXX in Mexico. He ended his employment with the company because of the restrictions on journalistic freedom. Corrupt government officials and criminal elements paid the company to “adjust the truth” by promoting certain stories, while censoring others. The claimant stated that he is aware of these dynamics because of the investigation conducted on the links between the government and organized crime in his hometown.
[10] The claimant stated that he had tried to report on a corruption story but was told by the executives of the company to stop and to focus on other issues. He was also warned by other colleagues to avoid researching and reporting on such stories.
[11] The claimant testified on an article he XXXX XXXX XXXX, which has been presented as part of the claimant’s disclosure.[5] The claimant decided to write this article because he wants to continue to expose government corruption and cartel collusion. The claimant stated that he will XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and would continue to engage in similar type of journalism if he returns to Mexico.
[12] The claimant has provided disclosure to corroborate the claim allegations, including education certificates, support letters corroborating the claimant’s professional activity[6] and photographs of himself working for the XXXX XXXX.[7] I have no reasons to doubt the trustworthiness or reliability of these documents. I find them to be probative and give them full weight in corroborating the claim allegations.
[13] The claimant has established with credible evidence that he holds a political opinion which is critical of the crime situation in Mexico, the government corruption and the collusion between criminal groups and the government. I accept the allegations that the claimant worked as a journalist in Mexico, and that his journalistic freedom was limited by his employer. I further accept that the claimant holds deep anti-corruption views, and that he is likely to continue to report on related issues if he returns to Mexico.
[14] I find that the claimant has established a subjective fear of persecution at the hands of corrupt state officials and criminal elements in Mexico, as a journalist who exposes their crimes.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[15] I find that the claimant’s subjective fear is objectively well-founded. The claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico as a journalist who reports on crime, corruption and the collusion between government officials and criminal organizations.
[16] The National Documentation Package (NDP) states that Mexico ranks 143rd out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom.[8] The government has rewarded media outlets which promote government agenda, while using various methods to suppress its critics.[9] Journalists in Mexico “could criticize the government …with no restrictions”, although many self-censored to avoid problems.[10] Journalists who report on crime and corruption often experience repercussions.[11] The primary perpetrators of aggression towards journalists are criminal entities and state actors.[12]
[17] Journalists have been murdered, subjected to other forms of violence, harassment and intimidation in Mexico by state actors and criminal organizations due to their reporting.[13] The Congressional Research Service report from March 2022 states that since the year 2000 more than 150 journalists have been killed in Mexico.[14] The same source states that attacks against journalists have been on the rise since the start of 2022. The country condition evidence filed in support of the claim indicates that Mexico has seen some of the highest numbers of journalist murders in the world in recent years.[15]
[18] Criminal groups have influence over media outlets in Mexico.[16] Those who publish stories criticizing criminal organizations face threats and violence.[17] In 2021 and in the first half of 2022 15 of 19 journalist killings were linked to criminal groups.[18]
[19] Between 2012 and 2021 there were 632 verbal and physical attacks on journalists, 47% of which were attributed to state actors.[19] The Ministry of National Defense of Mexico has been known to monitor journalists electronically through spyware.[20]
[20] The authorities have attempted to address impunity for journalist killings and have made some arrests.[21] There are measures in place to protect journalists, including the Mechanism to Protect Human Rights Defenders and Journalists, which provides bodyguards and other protective measures to journalists who ask for assistance.[22] However, these measures have been criticized as ineffective, mainly due to the lack of resources.[23]
[21] The objective evidence before me indicates that Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists who report on crime and corruption. While there is freedom of expression on paper, the reality is that there is limited press freedom in Mexico. Journalists who criticize the government and/or criminal entities face intimidation, threats and violence. While the government has taken steps in recent years to address the issue of violence against journalists, corruption is a major issue, and state actors are often the perpetrators of these crimes. The government has been known to monitor certain journalists through spyware technology.
[22] The claimant testified in a credible manner that he would be reporting on the issues of crime and corruption if he returns to Mexico. The claimant is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I note that the claimant’s right to express his political opinion is a fundamental right, which the claimant is not expected to supress.[24]
[23] I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of violence in Mexico from criminal organizations and state actors, which in itself constitutes persecution. Therefore, the claimant’s subjective fear is objectively well-founded.
State Protection
[24] The state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to suggest otherwise.[25] I find that the claimant has rebutted this presumption by showing that state protection available to him in Mexico is inadequate.
[25] There is ample information in the NDP to suggest that corruption is endemic in Mexico and permeates all levels of government institutions.[26] There are credible reports of police collusion with the cartels, abduction for ransom and taking bribes.[27]
[26] I note that the Mexican government has implemented measures to protect journalists and to investigate the crimes against them. However, the mechanisms in place are largely ineffective.[28] The Congressional Research Service report from March 2022 states that since 2018 seven journalists were killed while under the protection of the Mechanism to Protect Human Rights Defenders and Journalists.[29]
[27] The country condition evidence notes widespread impunity for crimes against journalists.[30] A 2019 survey of journalists found that 85% of the respondents felt that the government did little or nothing to protect them.[31] The Special Prosecutor for Crimes Against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) is a federal entity responsible for investigating crimes against journalists. Out of 105 investigations into killings of journalists conducted since 2010, only six cases resulted in homicide convictions.[32]
[28] If the claimant returns to Mexico, he will continue to report on the issues of criminality and corruption, as well as the collusion between the state and criminal organizations. The claimant is unlikely to receive adequate state protection, given the high levels of corruption in Mexico and the fact that the state is often the perpetrator of crimes against journalists. The mechanisms which are in place to protect journalists in Mexico are ineffective. For these reasons, I find that the state protection available to the claimant in Mexico is inadequate.
Internal Flight Alternative
[29] I find that the claimant has established that he does not have a viable IFA in Mexico. The claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution anywhere in Mexico.
[30] The country condition evidence previously cited indicates that corruption and collusion between the government and criminal organizations are widespread in Mexico. The NDP states that journalists are particularly at risk in the states of Guerrero, Sonora, Veracruz, and Michoacán.[33] Even though certain parts of Mexico are safer than others, such as low-crime Merida, criminal entities still operate there.[34]
[31] Major cartels have national reach and are able to track down and harm individuals in every part of Mexico.[35] Cartels employ a variety of methods, including using “private investigators to track people, as well as property records in the US and Mexico and placing GPS trackers on cars”.[36] Criminal groups use informants as “systems of local surveillance”.[37] Cartels have been known to bribe individuals working for phone companies to track phone calls, text messages or social media activity.[38] Major cartels also have connections with corrupt government officials and the police, who may provide the cartels with information from the official databases in order to locate individuals.[39]
[32] I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in any part of Mexico. If he reports on local issues pertaining to corruption and/or criminal activity, he faces a serious possibility of violence and other serious repercussions from local corrupt state actors and criminal organizations. If the claimant reports on broader nation-wide issues or events in other parts of Mexico, corrupt government officials and major cartels would be able to track him down and harm him anywhere in Mexico.
[33] The first prong of the IFA test is not met, as the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in every part of Mexico. I find that the claimant does not have a viable IFA.
CONCLUSION
[34] The claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.
(signed) Victor Sokolov
November 20, 2023
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Exhibit 2.
[3] Exhibit 1.
[4] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1979] F.C.J. No. 248 (FCA)(QL), [1980] 2 FC
302 (CA), at para 5.
[5] Exhibit 5.2.
[6] Exhibit 5.1.
[7] Exhibit 5.5.
[8] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.1, p. 4.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 2.1, p. 13.
[11] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.1, p. 3.
[12] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.1, p. 8.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.1, p. 3.
[15] Exhibit 5.3
[16] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 2.1, p. 16.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 2.1, p. 13.
[20] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.8, p. 1.
[21] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.8, p. 1.
[22] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.1, p. 9.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Pimental Colmenares v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 749, at para.14.
[25] Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85 at 724.
[26] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 2.1, at pp. 1-2.
[27] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 10.2, at p. 5.
[28] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.3, pp. 4-5.
[29] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.1, p. 9.
[30] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 2.1, p. 13.
[31] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.1, p. 10.
[32] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 11.7, p. 2.
[33] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 2.1, p. 17.
[34] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 7.8, at p. 4.
[35] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 7.8, at p. 11.
[36] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 7.15, at p. 10.
[37] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 7.53, at p. 2.
[38] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 7.8, at p. 11.
[39] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Mexico, September 29, 2023, Item 7.8, at pp. 13-14.