2023 RLLR 51
Citation: 2023 RLLR 51
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 6, 2023
Panel: Kevin Cantor
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Clement Osawe
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TC2-28893
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-28895, TC2-36641, TC2-36666
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: 000051-000059
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] XXXX, the principal claimant (PC) XXXX, and XXXX , the associate claimants (AC) all claim to be citizens of Mexico and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.[1]
Joined Claims
[2] Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division rules,[2] these claims for refugee protection were heard jointly. Each claim was decided on its own merits. However, the panel advised the claimants that their individual testimony might affect the other claimants. The panel made decisions for each claimant.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The complete story alleging the basis of the claimants’ fears are captured in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms[3] and can be summarized as follows. The PC is the sun of XXXX and is married to the AC, XXXX and XXXX are married. The PC and his father our evangelical XXXX and have alleged that the lives of the entire family are threatened by the XXXX as well as the mainstream Catholic Church due to their XXXX as well as the various XXXX from the associate claimant and that they have faced professional or ministerial backlash which includes violence, acts of harassment and death threats.
[4] The narratives of the PC and his father although separate are linked together with the PC facing continued persecution in Mexico after his father left Mexico in 2017. In XXXX 2020 XXXX left Mexico to be with her husband to flee religious persecution there and to assist her husband in his XXXX
DETERMINATION
[5] The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] The claimants’ personal identities and Mexican nationality were established, on a balance of probabilities, based on a copy of their Mexican passports.[4]
Nexus
[7] The claimants alleged that the persecution they face is due to their evangelical faith. The panel accepts that the claimants have established an access to one of the Convention grounds and, therefore, have assessed this claim against section 96 of the IRPA.
Credibility
[8] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their truthfulness.[5] In assessing the credibility of the evidence presented by both the PC and his father, the panel accepts, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants are credible witnesses overall. Both claimants were able to respond to the panel’s questions in a forthright matter and did not appear to embellish their claims.
[9] The AC, XXXX was the first witness to testify and stated that he had degree in XXXX and had XXXX in an effort to expose many improper deeds and practices by the mainstream Catholic Church. He dedicated his life to the church as a XXXX commencing in 1999. Both he and the PC fear the XXXX (an evangelical religious movement).
[10] The AC left this movement in 2013. The AC provided significant documentation
including books and articles XXXX as a XXXX. He testified that XXXX were openly criticized and that he lost numerous job opportunities in the role of a XXXX. Accordingly, he began working as a XXXX at a XXXX in Mexico City where he began to XXXX some of his work colleagues in the XXXX of Jesus Christ.
[11] On XXXX, 2016, the AC was involved in a serious accident where he has alleged that his motorcycle was rammed at a high speed from behind by a car whereby, he was significantly injured including a severely fractured XXXX requiring surgery. The PC was charged with a driving offence despite his protests, and he believes this was due to his religious XXXX. The AC provided numerous photos detailing his motorcycle accident and injuries and proof of his hospital treatment. He also provided numerous photos depicting his XXXX activities both in Mexico as well as his XXXX as a XXXX in Canada. A copy of a certificate of XXXX was also provided.
[12] The AC also provided a letter of recommendation from a pastor of the XXXX in Mexico, together with a letter from the XXXX in Mexico confirming that the AC XXXX in an effort to expose falsehoods, hypocrisy and sins within the Catholic Church and the fact that the AC was threatened on numerous occasions to stop his XXXX
[13] The PC testified that he was also XXXX as a XXXX, and he attended various indigenous churches to XXXX . He testified that stones were thrown at the family home located in the state of Mexico. The family home was also vandalized with graffiti and notes were left at the home that there would be attempts against the families’ lives. The PC continued to carry out XXXX work in the states of Puebla and Mexico and that on occasion he noted that he was being followed by vans. On XXXX , 2021, four individuals on two motorcycles were in front of his home and on XXXX, 2021 a van followed him. He was afraid for his safety and drove to a shopping centre and filed a report with the authorities who refused to do anything. On XXXX, 2022, while on a XXXX to the state of Puebla, the PC’s vehicle was followed by a car
with armed personnel, but the PC was able to avoid them.
[14] The claimants have alleged that the authorities do not wish to get involved in religious affairs or problems and that they fear for their safety because the church has fanatics throughout every state in Mexico.
[15] The PC was also able to provide a copy of the police report detailing the acts of intimidation against him, together with his certificate of XXXX and a letter of support from a pastor in Mexico.[6]
[16] The panel finds both the PC and the AC, his father to be credible witnesses. Accordingly, the claimants have established their subjective fear of persecution based on their evangelical Christian faith.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[17] The panel has sought guidance from the most recent National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico to assess the objective basis for the claimant’s fear of persecution based on his religion.
[18] The documentary evidence indicates the religious composition of Mexico as follows: “According to the 2020 Mexican government census, approximately 78 percent of the population identifies as Roman Catholic (compared with 83 percent in 2010); 10 percent as Protestant or Christian evangelical; and 1.5 percent as other religious groups, including Judaism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church of Jesus Christ), and Islam.”[7] The panel notes that there is no information regarding the XXXX sect in the NDP.
[19] However, the claimants were able to provide documentary evidence regarding the religious intolerance in Mexico against evangelicals. A report from the ANSA stated that “religious intolerance in Mexico, especially against the evangelical minority is on the rise, with expulsions of dozens of families, especially in indigenous communities, harassment and even murders, as well as high levels of impunity.” The article further indicated that in most cases the attacks came from traditionalist Catholics in a country considered the second most Catholic in the world.[8] a further article provided by the claimants stated that the expansion of violent criminal groups in Mexico and the climate of impunity surrounding such crimes has led to an increase in violence against religious leaders.
[20] Accordingly, given the documentary evidence and both claimants testimony, the claimants have established the objective basis for their well- founded fear of persecution. Given this, the panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution due to their evangelical faith in Mexico.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[21] At the outset of the hearing, the panel proposed the IFA location of Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur.
[22] The test to be applied in determining whether there is a viable IFA is two-pronged and both prongs must be satisfied for a finding that a claimant has a viable IFA. First, the panel must find that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted nor risk to life, danger of torture or of cruel and unusual treatment, on a balance of probabilities, in the proposed IFA.[9]
The claimant bears the burden of proof to show that there is a reasonable chance that persecution will occur in the entire country and specifically in the proposed IFA. Secondly, the panel 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 claimant, to relocate and reside there.[10]
[23] The panel has considered the totality of the evidence and finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants in the proposed IFA location.
[24] The panel acknowledges that Mexico is a large country with a population of over 132 million people covering an area of over 1.9 million sq. km. In addition, the Mexican constitution provides all persons the right to religious freedom, including the right to engage in religious ceremonies and acts of worship. [11]
[25] Accordingly, the objective documentary evidence before the panel indicates that there is a serious possibility of persecution even in the region considered “safest” in Mexico. Given that Mexico is predominantly a Catholic country, the claimants’ counsel submitted that the claimants are at risk of persecution throughout Mexico if they were to freely practice their religion. Both the PC and his father testify that they would continue to XXXX their evangelical faith throughout Mexico. A report found in the NDP stated that Catholicism is very important part of most Mexican peoples’ lives, and that old-fashioned “macho” and conservative Catholic attitudes prevail in the country.[12] In addition, tab 12.1 of the NDP outlines incidents where religious minorities in Mexico have experienced discrimination and intolerance.
[26] Having carefully considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Mexico. Thus, given the particular circumstances of the claimants who are evangelical Catholics, an internal flight alternative is not viable. Given that the test failed on the first prong, the panel did not consider the second test of reasonableness.
State Protection
[27] There is a presumption that except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens. [13]
[28] The US Department of State (DOS) Mexico Country Report on Human Rights 2021 states as follows: Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by police, military, and other governmental officials; forced disappearance by government agents; torture and degrading treatment by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; restrictions on free expression and media, including violence against journalists; acts of corruption; insufficient investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence, including but not limited to domestic and intimate partner violence; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting persons with disabilities; and crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex persons. Impunity and extremely low rates of prosecution remained a problem for all crimes, including human rights abuses and corruption. There were reports some government agents were complicit with international organized criminal gangs, and prosecution and conviction rates were low for these abuses.[14]
[29] The Mexico Freedom in the World 2022 indicates that “Mexico’ s justice system is plagued by delays, unpredictability, and corruption, which often lead to impunity for perpetrators of crimes.” [15]
[30] The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico and the documents submitted by the claimant make clear that the state is ineffective and in these particular circumstances, there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimants. Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimants have met the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
CONCLUSION
[31] For the following reasons, the panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees.
[32] Their claims are therefore accepted.
(signed) Kevin Cantor
November 6, 2023
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
[2] Refugee Protection Division Rules, (SOR/2012-256), Rule 55.
[3] Exhibits21.-2.4.
[4] Exhibit 1
[5] Maldonado v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.).
[6] Exhibit 6.
[7] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2023, tab 12.1
[8] Exhibit 9.
[9] Rasaratnam, Sivagantham v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991.
[10] Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993),
[11] Exhibit 3,tab 12.1.
[12] Exhibit 3,tab 1.15.
[13] Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Létourneau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister o/Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), at para 38.
[14] Exhibit 3,tab 2.2.
[15] Exhibit 3,tab 2.8