2023 RLLR 9

Citation: 2023 RLLR 9
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 1, 2023
Panel: T. Cortes-Diaz
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Suel Hee Lee
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TC2-19680
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So I had the opportunity to look at the evidence and also listen to your testimony and I am ready to give the claimant a decision today.

[2]       So these are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The file number is TC2-19680. 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.

[3]       In deciding this claim, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4, all relevant factors, such as the social and cultural context in which the claimant found herself, along with issues of state protection and country conditions were examined through the lens of the Gender Guidelines.

[4]       Details of the allegations can be found in the Basis of Claim form, but specifically the claimant alleges persecution at the hands of her stepfather, XXXX (ph). The claimant suffered extensive domestic violence, abuse as a child growing up in a violent household. The claimant claims that her stepfather is a man with criminal connections who has the ability to harm and kill her and her newborn baby.

[5]       In reaching my determination, I have considered all the evidence, including the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence. I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

[6]       I find that there is a nexus between the claimant’s allegations and the Convention grounds of membership in a particular social group, as a woman fearing gender-based violence.

[7]       I find that the claimant’s personal identity and nationality as a citizen of Mexico has been established by the claimant’s oral testimony and a copy of her passport contained in the evidence.

Credibility

[8]       In assessing the claimant’s testimony, I was mindful of the potential difficulties in testifying in a remote hearing setting. I was also aware of the claimant’s state of mind during the hearing. I was also mindful of the fact that the claimant had to testify about sensitive issues that transpired in Mexico. I — therefore, I understand the difficulties that she had presenting her case at times.

[9]       I find that the claimant’s spontaneous, sworn testimony is consistent with my knowledge about the cycle of domestic abuse, which is at its core about power and control, and this power and control dynamics are particularly pronounced in societies where women face serious inequalities and discriminatory and harmful gender roles and expectations. I believe this is the case of Mexico. The claimant became emotional while testifying about the abuse she endured at the hands of her stepfather, which is indicative of the trauma that she has suffered and the fear that she has for her life and the life of her baby, if she was going to — if she were to go back to the same situation in Mexico. I find that — the claimant to be credible and trustworthy witness. Accordingly, the claimant has established her subjective fear based on her membership in a particular social group, gender.

[10]     The claimant has testified and provided supporting documentation regarding the material allegations. She provided pictures, this depicting injuries and bruises that she sustained due to the physical abuse she endured at the hands of the agent of persecution. She also submitted witness letters that corroborate her allegations.

Objective Basis

[11]     I find that the claimant — the claimant’s subjective fear of harm in Mexico, it is supported by the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package. The claimant’s allegations are consistent with objective reports that say that violence in Mexico is widespread, with over half of separated, divorced or widowed women in Mexico having reported to experience — having experienced emotional, economic or physical abuse in their current or prior relationship. The reason why I mentioned separated, divorced women who have been in intimate relationships is because the claimant’s mother was in an abusive relationship and she suffered all the abuse because she was in a household where her stepfather was abusing her mother and she suffered all the consequences of that abuse, and the abuse extended to herself and her sisters.

[12]     So I find that, like I said before, the objective evidence is very clear about the situation of women in Mexico and it also is clear that even though there are legislation in Mexico that is supposed to protect women, but this legislation is not being enforced. So Mexico has passed several laws intended to give women the right to equality and life free of violence and all 32 Mexican states have created and passed their own laws to address violence against women. However, reporting remains slow.

[13]     Reports by the United Nations non-government organizations indicates that the reporting rates of violence against act of violence against women and even the way the authorities respond to that violence is ineffective. Tab 5.1 says that none of the protocols and laws related to violence against women have been effective. State and municipal laws addressing domestic violence largely failed to meet the required federal standards, and after — often were unenforced. The state agents responsible for the practical implementation of the law do not have a gender perspective and they are not committed to women and are openly misogynistic.

[14]     In regards to the internal flight alternative, I find that the claimant does not have an IFA. I find that the test fails mainly under prong two (2) of the assessment. I find that for the claimant to relocate to the suggested locations of Cabo San Lucas and Mérida is unreasonable, taking into consideration the personal circumstances of the claimant. I have taken into consideration the claimant’s education, age, mental health state and work experience to determine how reasonable and feasible it is for a woman with an infant to relocate in Mexico.

[15]     Firstly, the claimant has no work experience or professional education of any time or family support, which is so important in Mexico, that would allow her to live independently. I believe that if the claimant were — was forced to return to Mexico, she will somehow access to the only supports that she has in Mexico and that will put her at risk. The claimant’s BOC states that she is very worried about her sisters, about her family, the family she left behind. I have no doubt that she will reach out in order to — you know, out of concern to them and it is very easy to suggest that she will display her new location and that can be — the agent of persecution can find out where the claimant is.

[16]     I take into consideration the profile of the agent of persecution. He has exerted violence against her mother, sisters, the claimant, to find out information about the claimant, where she is living and the claimant testified at the beginning of the hearing that she does not talk to her mother anymore, that she has not been in contact with her for almost two (2) years. Why? Because she does not want the agent of persecution to know where she is living. So I find also that the claimant’s evident trauma acquired through the years of abuse also puts her at risk and in a vulnerable state that can attract further violence and victimization.

[17]     Having taken all this into consideration, I find that the suggested internal flight alternatives, the locations, are unsafe and unreasonable and this is, of course, done on a balance of probabilities.

[18]     In regards to state protection, the objective evidence establishes that the government authorities are not committed to enforcing legislation pertaining to domestic violence in Mexico. I find that adequate state protection will not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. I also take into consideration the claimant’s allegations that her stepfather is involved in criminal activities and he pays the police — he bribes the police so he can be out of jail because somehow he should be in jail, but like, he gets away with a lot of this because he is colluded with the local authorities. So the objective evidence establishes that government authorities are corrupt and they are also not committed to enforcing legislation pertaining to domestic violence. Women do not have the confidence in the authorities to protect them against such acts of violence. Therefore, based on the claimant’s own experience in seeking protection in Mexico and the objective evidence discussed above, I find that she will be unable to access adequate state protection in Mexico and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

CONCLUSION

[19]     For the reasons above, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee, under section 96 of the IRPA, based on her membership in a particular social group, this is a woman at risk of gender related violence.

[20]     Thank you.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———