Date: 20100512
Docket: IMM-2872-09
Citation: 2010 FC 519
Ottawa, Ontario, May 12,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
JULIETA ALEJANDRA
ALVARADO MENDOZA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
The
Applicant, a female citizen of Mexico, seeks judicial review of a decision by
the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) holding that she was not in need of
protection pursuant to s. 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
and that adequate state protection was available to her in Mexico.
II. FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant worked for the Mexican federal government in Mexico City. She claimed
that her boss, Sanchez, wished her moved to another position. When the
Applicant refused to move, she was harassed by Sanchez – who it was also
alleged is a friend of the Mexican president’s spouse.
[3]
The
Applicant outlined the acts of harassment as an assault (a push) which resulted
in a miscarriage and telephone threats. The government complaint system was of
no assistance to the Applicant, allegedly because of Sanchez’s political
connections.
[4]
On
May 4, 2007, so the Applicant alleges, she was abducted by men she believes
were sent by Sanchez. She offered to quit her job – the response was that it
was too late. She was then released and three weeks later left for Canada. She filed
her refugee claim two weeks thereafter.
[5]
The
Applicant claims that she fled Mexico because of her fear of Sanchez. Because of
Sanchez’s relationship to President Fox’s wife, the Applicant claimed that she
was afraid that she could be tracked down anywhere in Mexico.
[6]
The
notes of her interview with CIC officials on the date of filing her refugee
claim make no reference to her kidnapping but confirm that her reasons for
leaving Mexico were fears
of harassment and threats from her boss (Sanchez). The Applicant admits that
she did not make a complaint to any police authority in Mexico.
[7]
The
narrative of the kidnapping was outlined on her PIF which was before the Board.
[8]
The
Applicant challenges the Board’s decision on two grounds – (1) the
implausibility finding in respect of the kidnapping incident, and (2) the
finding that state protection was reasonably available to her.
III. ANALYSIS
[9]
The
standard of review for both grounds is reasonableness (Rajadurai v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 119; Mendez v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 584).
[10]
The
Applicant is, in substance, asking the Court to reweigh the evidence which was
before the Board and to substitute its conclusions.
[11]
However,
there is no basis for the Court’s intervention. The Board pointed out a
significant omission which reasonably called the Applicant’s credibility into
question. The Board gave sufficient reasons for not accepting the Applicant’s
story and that conclusion is reasonable in the context of this case.
[12]
The
state protection finding was a finding that the Applicant had not displaced the
presumption of state protection and that the evidence in this case, taken as a
whole, did not justify a negative conclusion on state protection.
[13]
The
Applicant did not approach the myriad of police and other organizations in Mexico City. While she
claimed fear of corrupt police, her evidence had been that going to the police
would anger Sanchez – not that the police would be ineffective. Her persecutor
was not the police but an individual.
[14]
As
to the alleged influence of Sanchez through Mrs. Fox, while the Board did not
hold that such a claim was not credible, it did point out the efforts made by
the Fox government to combat corruption – a circumstance inconsistent with the
suggestion that a friend of Mrs. Fox could prevent state protection being
available to the Applicant.
[15]
The
Board’s conclusions were reasonable and its consideration of the evidence was
more than sufficient.
IV. CONCLUSION
[16]
Therefore,
this judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Email this Content