2023 RLLR 45
Citation: 2023 RLLR 45
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 31, 2023
Panel: T. Cortes-Diaz
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Adela Crossley
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TB9-03547
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: 000006-000011
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX (the claimant), 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.
Chairperson’s Guidelines
[2] In deciding this claim, I have considered the Chairperson Guideline 4: Gender Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board (Chairperson’s Gender Guidelines). All relevant factors, such as the social and cultural context in which the claimant found herself, along with the issues of state protection and country conditions, were examined through the lens of the Gender Guidelines.
De Novo
[3] The first hearing into the claim was held on September 14, 2021, with a decision dated October 05, 2021, the claim was rejected. The decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) was appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was returned to the RPD for re-determination by a different member. These are the reasons for the decision of the de novo hearing which was held on January 05, 2023.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] Details of the allegations can be found in the Basis of Claim form (BOC).[1]
DETERMINATION
[5] In reaching this determination, I have considered all the evidence including the claimant’s testimony, the documentary evidence filed as well as counsel’s oral submissions.
[6] Based on the totality of the evidence before me and the objective evidence which I will highlight in a moment, I find that you, the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the intersecting grounds of religion and membership in a particular social group; namely a woman facing gender related violence.
[7] Further, I find that the claimant has established that she would face a serious possibility of persecution if she retuned to Mexico.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[8] I find that the claimant’s personal identity and Mexican nationality has been established by her passport filed in evidence and her testimony at the hearing.
Credibility
[9] In assessing the claimants’ testimony, I was mindful of the potential difficulties in testifying in a remote hearing setting and of the fact that the claimant had to testify about sensitive issues that transpired in Mexico.
[10] I generally found the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore believe what she has alleged in support of her claim. I also find that she made her best effort to respond to the questions in a straightforward manner, and she did not make any effort to embellish her testimony.
Well-foundedness of the Claim
[11] Even though Mexico’s constitution provides all persons the right to religious freedom, including the right to engage in religious ceremonies and acts of worship[2], and even though the claimant was able to practice her religion in Mexico, she credibly testified about the many incidents of discrimination and hate she was a victim of because of her religion. The claimant testified she started wearing a hijab when she converted to Islam in 2012 and described in very detail the violent incidents and threats that she received, which were fueled by her Muslim appearance and wrongly perceived Arab nationality. The claimant also testified that she was also easily identifiable among people because of the hijab which made an easy target for xenophobic and anti-Islamic verbal attacks from people. This reality coupled with her condition as a single woman, made her even more vulnerable to violence in a country where violence against women, femicide, and impunity is a condemning reality[3]. Section 2.2 of the NDP states that “gender based violence against women and girls is widespread in Mexico“, adding that the perpetrators of this violence are rarely punished. The claimant further claims that she was unable to get police protection when these incidents happened as they did not take her seriously.
[12] “Laws targeting gender-based violence are most often unenforced and are ineffective, with the state agents responsible for enforcing the laws described as “not committed to women or are openly misogynistic”[4]
[13] I find that the objective evidence in this case supports the claimant’s subjective fear of victimization and harm based on her profile as a Muslim woman living in Mexico.
State Protection
[14] Even though Mexican legislation provides legal provisions[5] that guarantees women the access to equal right and protection them from violence, in practice, Mexican women continue to be exposed to extreme levels of aggression and gender violations. Item 5.10 of the NDP states that according to sources, violence against women is pandemic. Sources also indicate that violence against women cuts across social, gender, economic, cultural and age lines. It also states that the causes of violence against women in Mexico includes cultural attitudes and socially constructed gender roles ingrained in generation after generation.
[15] Based on the above evidence and taking into consideration the specific profile of the claimant; a Muslim single woman living in Mexico, the past incidents of violence the claimant has been victim of, and the displayed inability of Mexican authorities to protect her, I find that state protection will not be available to the claimant if she returned to Mexico. Therefore, the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
Internal Flight Alternative
[16] I must consider a two-prong test to determine the viability of an IFA location. Firstly, I must be satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk to their life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA. Secondly, I must be satisfied that conditions in the suggested IFA are not such that it would be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimants, for them to relocate and reside there.
[17] I proposed Campeche as a potential internal flight alternative that would be both safe and reasonable for the claimant. However, I have found that wherever the claimant goes in Mexico there will be a risk for violence based on gender and religious profile.
[18] The objective evidence suggests [6] that the Muslim community in Mexico conform a religious minority with a presence mostly in the state of Mexico. This state is precisely where the claimant lived and faced discrimination and the violent attacks. In response to the risk and fear she was experiencing, in 2018, the claimant moved to Chiapas where the next biggest Muslim community exist in Mexico. In there, the claimant also experienced discrimination and hate events that made her return to her parents’ house and eventually leave for Canada.
[19] The objective evidence does not support that Campeche will be a location where the claimant will be able to freely and safely live as a Muslim woman and openly practice her religion. In fact, the evidence suggests that violence against women is widespread in Mexico and a matter of national concern. Also, the claimant testified that she will not be able to practice her religion in Campeche as there are no mosques or a Muslim community she can participate in. Also, I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the chances of the claimant facing the same discrimination and not being protected again by the authorities reasonable high and enough to determine that Campeche is not a safe and reasonable IFA location.
CONCLUSION
[20] Based on the analysis above, I find the claimant to be a convention refugee based on the intersectionality of religion and gender under section 96 of the IRPA. I, therefore, accept her claim for refugee protection.
(signed) T. Cortes-Diaz
January 31, 2023
[1] Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form
[2] Exhibit 3, National documentation package for Mexico version September 29, 2022. Item 12.1.
[3] Exhibit 3, National documentation package for Mexico version September 29, 2022. Item 2.8
[4] Exhibit 3: National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2022, 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] Exhibit 3, National documentation package for Mexico version September 29, 2022. Item 5.4
[6] Exhibit 3, National documentation package for Mexico version September 29, 2022. Item 12. 1.