2023 RLLR 58

Citation: 2023 RLLR 58
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 4, 2023
Panel: Tina Androutsos
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kareem Essam Ibrahim
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TC3-31223
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: 000117-000121

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX TC3-31223, who claims to be a citizen of Mexico and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The claimant is a 26-year-old male from Chiapas, Mexico and fears the corrupt Sinaloa Cartel. The claimant was barn in Tuxtla but has been living with his family in Chiapas from a young age. The claimant worked with the XXXX where they XXXX The claimant’s family was a XXXX in XXXX, Chiapas, which required the family to travel to Tabasco, Mérida and other places throughout Mexico and basically travel wherever they XXXX including close to the Guatemala border.

[3]       The claimant’s father started receiving threatening calls in 2010 from members of the Sinaloa Cartel demanding that he work for them. The cartel demanded that the claimant’s father transport their drugs for them from one (1) city to another, which he refused. The claimant’s brother was murdered by the Sinaloa Cartel on XXXX 2011 and the father was informed by the cartel members that they would strike the family again if they did not obey the demands to work for them, the cartel.

[4]       The claimant and his family stayed XXXX, which was located XXXX with minimal connection to the community. The claimant’s mother left XXXX on XXXX, 2016, was intercepted by the Sinaloa Cartel members, killed and tortured. The claimant’s father continued to be threatened that his older son would be killed next if he did — his other son would be killed next if he did not obey the cartel’s demand to transport drugs for them.

[5]       The claimant’s father moved to Villahermosa in the state of Tabasco. The claimant moved from Chiapas to Mérida, Guanajuato to Guerrero, and each time was located and threatened. The claimant was threatened in-person by the Sinaloa Cartel in these cities and continued to receive threats of death and torture although he continually changed his phone number.

[6]       To this day, the claimant’s father continues to receive death threats for his son and is extorted by the Sinaloa Cartel.

[7]       The claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX, 2022 and filed for protection on December 28th, 2022.

[8]       ln terms of delay, which l asked the PC (sic) about — sorry, the claimant about, he indicated that when he first arrived in Canada, he was not aware that he could claim for refugee protection and only became aware when he met a man named XXXX (ph) whom he confided in and told him his options. I accept this as a reasonable explanation and I draw no negative inference.

[9]       l find that your identity as a national of Mexico is established by the documents provided, including a certified copy of your Mexican passport.

[10]     ln terms of credibility, l am reminded in the case of Maldonado, which established that when a claimant swears to the truth of allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness.

[11]     I find you to be a credible witness and you — and therefore, believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. You have testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me.

[12]     You provided supporting material, including affidavits and letters provided by family members and friends that document what occurred with the Sinaloa Cartel over the years, including the death certificates of the claimant’s brother and the claimant’s mother. The claimant’s father also connected into the hearing from Mexico to testify on the claimant’s behalf. Ali of which — this evidence corroborates your allegations.

[13]     Based on the credibility of the claimant’s allegations, his identity as someone who defied them and escaped their demands to work with the cartel and the objective documentary evidence set out below, I find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, if he returned to Mexico, he would be subjected to violence at the hands of the cartel.

[14]     The harm that the claimant would face upon return to Mexico clearly amounts to a personalized risk or to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. That is, he would face a personalized risk to his life because he defied the cartel and did not do as he was told. This is a risk not generally faced by the Mexican population because it is defined by the claimant as he defied the cartel’s demand to work for them and transport drugs for them and for any other corrupt business purposes. For these reasons, I find that the claimant’s faces a section 97 risk in Mexico.

[15]     There is a presumption that the state has the ability to protect its citizens. That presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that it is not reasonable to seek protection or that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming.

[16]     The documentary evidence clearly establishes that the corruption of police forces in Mexico is a serious problem, with no indication of improvement in recent years. Organized crime has deeply infiltrated police institutions at all levels and law enforcement agencies have been involved in facilitation of illegal business activities, working for organized crimes and systematically violating human rights. Item 9.10 of the NDP states that there is a blatant corruption and abuse of power within the police and that they are involved in crimes that have been reported by national anti-corruption systems. There have also been credible reports of police involvement in kidnappings for ransom and that federal officials are sometimes accused of perpetrating these crimes.

[17]     Given the clearly documented state of police corruption, coupled with the fact that it is well-documented that cartels have infiltrated the police and the claimant cannot be expected to turn to the state for protection. Therefore, the presumption of state protection is rebutted.

[18]     In terms of internal flight alternative, at the beginning of the hearing, I suggested an internal flight alternative in Mérida, Campeche or Baja California could exist. I must consider if the cartel would have the motivation and capacity to pursue the claimant if he relocated to Mexico. After, however, considering ail the evidence, I find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the agents of harm, specifically the Sinaloa Cartel, has the capacity and the motivation to locate him throughout Mexico.

[19]     The objective evidence indicates that cartels are extremely powerful, believed to have a presence in every part of the country. The objective documentary evidence indicates that the Sinaloa Cartel, despite a loss of power over the years to the CJNG, remains a powerful cartel with a presence throughout Mexico. The documentary evidence confirms that the cartels have the capacity to track individuals beyond their areas of operation by relying on representation that they have in other areas. As well, cartels use family networks and private investigators to trad: people as well as property records in the US and Mexico, and by placing GPS trackers on their cars. The cartels – according to Exhibit 3, Item 7.15 of the current NDP, states corrupt law enforcement agents are used to obtain information about the people they pursue.

[20]     I find that the above cited evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant could be located and harmed by the cartel anywhere in Mexico.

[21]     While the claimant is nota high-profile journalist or politician or someone who could harm the operations of the cartel through his power and influence, the documentary evidence states that a large debt or a personal vendetta could motivate them to track someone outside of their area. I have considered the cartel’s interest in the — cartel’s level of interest in the claimant in determining whether, on a balance of probabilities, there is a section 97(1) risk for the claimant throughout Mexico.

[22]     The claimant moved from Chiapas to Mérida to Guanajuato to Guerrero, and each time was located by the cartel and threatened he should do as he was told, that he could not escape no matter where he went in Mexico. l find it would be reasonable to expect that the cartel would look for the claimant upon his return to Mexico and that they are motivated to pursue him as the claimant and his father defied their demands to work for them.

[23]     For the above reasons I find agents of harm would pursue and harm the claimant, on a balance of probabilities, throughout Mexico. For these reasons, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant.

[24]     I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant faces a personalized and prospective risk to his life or cruel — a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in every part of Mexico. This is a specific personal risk faced by the claimant as opposed to indiscriminate or random risk faced by the others.

[25]     In conclusion, for the preceding reasons, I find that the claimant is in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA, and therefore, I accept his claim.

[26]     Congratulations and welcome to Canada.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———