Date: 20060421
Docket: IMM-4486-05
Citation: 2006 FC 504
BETWEEN:
ERIKA CARDENASPARRALES
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
[1] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) determined that Ms. Parrales is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) because she has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mexico City where adequate state protection exists. She seeks judicial review of that decision.
[2] Despite the articulate and capable submissions of counsel for the respondent, I have concluded that the application should be allowed on the basis of the inadequacy of the board's analysis regarding the second prong of the IFA test.
[3] Ms. Parrales is a 31-year-old citizen of Mexico. Distilled, the facts, as she disclosed them, are set out here. She was born and lived most of her life in Querétaro. She is a lesbian and because she had difficulty coming to terms with her sexual orientation, she underwent psychotherapy from 1993 to 1995. She suffered severe abuse at the behest of civilians and the police in Querétaro. In 1996, she was assaulted by a group of men who seriously injured her nose. In 1998, a group of policemen referred to her as a "dyke" and beat her. She again sustained injury to her nose and required reconstructive surgery.
[4] For a variety of reasons, Ms. Parrales did not report the latter incident to the police. Rather, she went to the Human Rights Commission, but she did not receive any assistance.
[5] Hoping to find more liberality in another location, Ms. Parrales moved to Monterrey, the third largest city in Mexico. There, she became involved in a long-term relationship. In 1999, she and her partner were leaving a bar when they were approached by three policemen. Her partner was held at gunpoint while one of the men sexually assaulted Ms. Parrales, stating that he would "teach them how to become real women". The policemen threatened them against reporting the assault and warned that they would be laughed at if they did.
[6] When her partner entered a heterosexual relationship, Ms. Parrales was threatened by her former partner's fiancée. He told her that he was a police officer and she claims to have later confirmed that he was a high-ranking police official. In 2002, a group of policemen threatened her and told her that she would "disappear" if she did not leave on her own. She returned to her parents' home in Querétaro, but was afraid to go out of the house. She became severely depressed and contemplated suicide. She returned to psychotherapy. Anti-depressants were prescribed. Finally, she claims to have received a threat in March 2003 that prompted her departure from Mexico.
[7] Ms. Parrales' evidence regarding her nose injuries (including the reconstructive surgery) is corroborated by the report of Dr. Salvador Lloret Medina, Plastic Surgeon. The psychotherapy from 1993 until 1995 and again in 2002 is corroborated by the report of Dr. Rodolfo Dominguez.
[8] At the hearing, when questioned as to whether she had sought treatment since arriving in Canada, Ms. Parrales stated that she had, but the Spanish-speaking psychologist, whom she had been seeing, had moved from the city. She was not receiving treatment at the time of her hearing. She testified that her experiences had totally changed her life and that she would live in constant fear in Mexico, including Mexico City.
[9] The test regarding an IFA is two-pronged and is articulated in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.) and Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.). First, the RPD must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the proposed IFA. Second, the conditions in the proposed IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, upon consideration of all the circumstances, including consideration of a claimant's personal circumstances, for the claimant to seek refuge there.
[10] The board's decision regarding the first prong of the test cannot be faulted. Forty-six paragraphs of the decision are devoted to a recitation of the country conditions and satisfaction of the first prong of the test. In contrast, only two paragraphs contain the analysis with respect to the second prong of the test.
[11] In essence, the board finds that the psychological report from Mexico is not helpful because it relates to a previous time. It observed that Ms. Parrales "appeared to be in good health", is well-educated and is a capable, resourceful, young woman. Therefore, it would not be unreasonably harsh in all the circumstances for her to move to the IFA location.
[12] It was undoubtedly open to the board to conclude that an IFA exists in Mexico City. That said, to arrive at such a conclusion without any reference to the particular circumstances of Ms. Parrales, and more specifically her experiences, in my view, is patently unreasonable. Ms. Parrales incurred substantial abuse, including a sexual assault (the board characterized it as abhorrent and inexcusable) perpetrated by members of the Mexican police force. While the documentary evidence satisfies the first prong of the test for an IFA, the RPD did not set out the factual findings upon which it based its conclusion that it was not unreasonable for Ms. Parrales to seek refuge in Mexico City. Having discounted only the 2003 incident, the board failed to consider the remainder of her evidence, which it appears to have accepted, in its analysis regarding the reasonableness of the IFA for Ms. Parrales.
[13] The RPD must articulate its reasons for concluding as it did. The reasons provided, here, are inadequate in the circumstances. Perhaps, having considered Ms. Parrales' individual circumstances, the board would have come to the same conclusion regarding an IFA However, the board's reasons, as they stand, do not enable me to arrive at that conclusion.
[14] For the foregoing reasons, the application will be allowed. Counsel did not suggest a question for certification nor does one arise on these facts.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
Ottawa, Ontario
April 21, 2006
Email this Content