2023 RLLR 59

Citation: 2023 RLLR 59
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 30, 2023
Panel: Keith Brennenstuhl
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mehmet Alper Kirtil
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TC3-31528
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-31529, TC3-31532
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: 000122-000125

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision and the claims of XXXX, the principal claimant, her 18-year-old daughter   XXXX, and her 15-year-old daughter, XXXX, who 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.

[2]       The principal claimant was appointed the designated representative for her minor child,

XXXX. The principal claimant was born and raised in the state of Veracruz. In 2011, the principal claimant started working at the XXXX with the help of the XXXX and his wife, whom she met during a XXXX. Her job was to XXXX, which she did wholeheartedly.

[3]       ln 2017. She was invited to be a part of the XXXX of the XXXX. In the XXXX of 2018, the principal claimant started receiving calls from the cartel. At first, she did not understand who they were and what they wanted. At one (1) point, the caller said their commander offered to sell their products, namely drugs, which they knew would make good money. On one (1) occasion, she referred to the caller as zetters (ph), which infuriated the caller, who, with venom, told the principal that he was with the cartel, Jalisco New Generation, the CJNG.

[4]       On XXXX, 2018, as she was stepping out of her car to open the garage gate, a gray car with tinted windows pulled up next to her. A man pointed a gun at her, and shot, hitting the glass — the door of her car. She managed to run into the house, several glass pieces having cut into her arm — her forearm, causing injuries.

[5]       On XXXX, 2018, at around 3:00 a.m., she and her family were asleep when they were awakened by sounds of gunshots outside their house. The police were summoned. The police stated that it was a couple of drunk boys practicing with their gun. She was scared and felt she could not rely on the police for protection, so she left and came to Canada. She arrived XXXX 2019.

[6]       On XXXX, 2019, XXXX attended a gathering to inform people about XXXX and to XXXX. Armed individuals forcefully entered the gathering place and started shooting at everyone. Tt was a massacre. One (1) of her close colleagues died in the incident. She later learned that the people who helped her to get the XXXX job were arrested for drug possession, and that her boss had been kidnapped.

[7]       On XXXX. 2020, one (1) of her close family friends — members were shot dead by the cartel. She learned that the cartel had started threatening her oldest daughter, XXXX (ph) and her husband. The cartel shot at her husband at one (1) point. Unbeknownst to the principal claimant, they fled to Canada, where they made a successful refugee claim.

[8]       The cartel started to threaten her parents, and the threats got specific towards the principal claimant’s, daughters XXXX and XXXX, who were in their care. On XXXX, 2022, her parents decided to run away and stay at some other places for protection. The children remained in hiding, unable to attend school or outdoor activities. The principal claimant’s father decided to send the girls to Canada as he was not sure, given his state of health and age, that he would be able to protect them any more.

[9]       I find that the claimants are persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, because on a balance of probabilities they would be subjected personally to a risk to their lives, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the CJNG, should they return to Mexico.

[10]     I find the claimants’ identities are established by the documents provided, and — including true copies of their Mexican passports.

[11]     Testimony provided under oath is presumed to be truthful unless there is a reason for doubting its truthfulness. I find the principal claimant to be credible, and I believe that the allegations of the claim on a balance of probabilities. The testimony of the principal claimant was straightforward and detailed without embellishment or exaggeration. She responded to questions spontaneously, and her emotional demeanor was consistent with the gravity of her situation. There were no relevant contradictions, inconsistencies, or omissions between the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms, the testimony, or the documents in evidence. The documents produced by the claimants confirmed the key elements of the claim. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of these documents, and as such, I place great weight on them.

[12]     The objective evidence establishes they have no reasonable expectation of state protection in Mexico. I find that adequate state protection is not available to protect the claimants from the agent of harm. The fact police refused the principal claimant’s overtures for help on the night of the shooting at her house is demonstrative of lack of state protection under the circumstances.

[13]     The objective country conditions evidence establishes that despite efforts by the state to combat crime, the police generally are ineffective enough and tainted by corruption. A recent RIR highlights the high level of corruption among the police forces in Mexico, stating that most police are controlled by criminals, and that police forces and politicians have been largely infiltrated by organized crime. Based on the evidence in the record, I find that adequate state protection is not available on a balance of probabilities.

[14]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. At the beginning of the hearing, I identified Cabo San Lucas. However, I find the objective documentary evidence corroborates the claimants’ position that a viable IFA is not available to the claimants in Mexico, as the CJNG has a growing presence in the country and the means to track individuals nationally.

[15]     I find further that the past behaviour of the agent of harm establishes that the cartel would be motivated to pursue the claimants if they returned to Mexico. A viable IFA is not available to the claimants. The current NDP for Mexico establishes that the CJNG is a powerful and violent cartel with a presence through extensive alliances and smaller cells in all 32 states. There is evidence indicating that the CJNG has the most operational capacity in the country, and it is the only cartel with national presence and that Cabo San Lucas is part of the CJNG’s area of considerable influence.

[16]     Turning to the claimants’ circumstances, in my view, the past behaviour of the agent of harm in harassing and threatening the principal payments over an extended period of time, and tracking the PC’s — principal claimant’s father to several locations and harassing him, following the principal claimant’s flight to Canada for refuge is persuasive evidence of a high level of  motivation to pursue the claimants.

[17]     As the means and motivation of the agent of harm to pursue the claimants is established, I find the claimants face a section 97(1) risk of harm on a balance of probabilities if they relocate it elsewhere to Mexico — in Mexico, including the proposed IFA location of Cabo San Lucas. Thus, the proposed IFA fails the first prong of the test and cannot be found to be a viable IFA for the claimants on consideration of all the circumstances. ln view of my finding on the first prong, l need not go on to consider the reasonableness of the relocation to the proposed IFA under the second prong of the test.

[18]     In light of the preceding, I conclude the claimants are persons in need of protections pursuant to section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Accordingly, I accept the claims.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———