BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
Pinard J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the RPD) that the applicant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Mexico and claims to have been targeted by Miguel Angel Gonzalez Lopez, the chief of police in the city of Merida (Yucatan), who thought that his son had become a homosexual because of the applicant.
[3] The RPD noted that the applicant established his identity and that his testimony “[i]n general …was credible”. However, the RPD denied his application because the applicant had an internal flight alternative available in his country.
[4] The panel also criticized the applicant for failing to file documents to corroborate his allegations. The RPD rejected the applicant’s explanation that he took nothing when he fled Mexico because the applicant “retained the services of a lawyer who specializes in refugee cases” and “apparently had ample time to obtain documents”.
[5] It is trite law that in order to obtain refugee status in Canada, claimants must demonstrate, inter alia, that there is no possibility of an internal flight alternative in their country of origin. They must provide clear and convincing evidence that they are unable to seek state protection (see Zalzali v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] 3 F.C. 605 (C.A.), Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 and Ahmed v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 1035 (T.D.) (QL)).
[6] I cannot accept the applicant’s submission that the RPD’s finding that an internal flight alternative existed was unreasonable, much less patently unreasonable. The RPD did not question the applicant’s credibility but nonetheless determined that there was an internal flight alternative, based on the documentary evidence that the police forces are not co-ordinated and on the applicant’s inability to demonstrate that the threat exists throughout Mexico. Moreover, nothing in the applicant’s evidence assisted him in establishing that Mexico is unable to protect him. There is not even any evidence that the agent of persecution is still a member of the police force or that he is continuing to look for the applicant.
[7] In the circumstances, the intervention of this Court is not warranted, and the application for judicial review must, therefore, be dismissed.
Ottawa, Ontario
November 15, 2007
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1384-07
STYLE OF CAUSE: CASTULO NOVELO DEL RIO v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 9, 2007
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
APPEARANCES:
Manuel Centurion FOR THE APPLICANT
Caroline Laverdière FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Manuel Centurion FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada