Date: 20100929
Docket: IMM-773-10
Citation: 2010 FC 976
Toronto, Ontario, September 29,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
JESUS RIVERA ACOSTA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
applicant Jesus Rivera Acosta is a Mexican citizen who entered Canada in February,
2009 and claimed refugee protection. That claim was rejected by a decision of a
Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated January 22, 2010.
It is this decision that is the subject of judicial review.
[2]
Two
issues are raised on this judicial review. The first is that of state
protection and in particular the adequacy of state protection afforded to persons
such as the applicant in Mexico and as well, whether the applicant took
appropriate steps in the circumstances to avail himself of state protection.
The second issue is that of credibility and in particular were the findings of
the Board Member hearing the matter that the applicant’s evidence, in several
respects, lacked credibility reasonable.
[3]
As
to each of these issues the appropriate standard for judicial review is that of
reasonableness as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases including Dunsmuir
v. New
Brunswick,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.
[4]
As
to the adequacy of state protection I am satisfied that the Board Member in
arriving at the decision at issue was aware of the problems, including
corruption, present in Mexico such as described by Tremblay-Lamer J. in Zepeda
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 491 at
paragraph 20:
[20] I find Madam Justice Gauthier’s
approach to the presumption of state protection in Mexico to be persuasive. While Mexico is a democracy and generally
willing to protect its citizens, its governance and corruption problems are
well documented. Accordingly, decision-makers must engage in a full assessment
of the evidence placed before them suggesting that Mexico, while wiling to protect, may
be unable to do so. This assessment should include the context of the country
of origin in general, all the steps that the applicants did in fact take, and
their interaction with the authorities (Hernandez v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1211, [2007] F.C.J. No. 1563 (QL), at
para. 21; G.D.C.P. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002
FCT 989, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1331 (QL), at para. 18).
[5]
The
Member made a careful assessment of the materials provided including the relatively
scant materials provided by the applicant and made a reasonable assessment
based on those materials. I am also satisfied that the Member carefully
considered the limited and poorly documented efforts that the applicant said he
made to seek such protection including excuses provided as to why he did not
more vigorously seek such protection. The Member’s determination was
reasonable.
[6]
I
make a similar finding with respect to the Member’s determination as to
credibility. Given the record before the Member and the evidence at the hearing
as recorded in the transcript, those determinations were reasonable.
[7]
This
application will, therefore, be dismissed. No Counsel requested certification.
There is no basis for an order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
FOR THE
REASONS PROVIDED
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1.
The
application is dismissed;
2.
There
is no question for certification;
3.
No
order as to costs.
“Roger T. Hughes”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-773-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: JESUS RIVERA ACOSTA v. THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO,
ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: HUGHES J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
APPEARANCES:
|
Joseph S. Farkas
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Alex Kam
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Joseph S. Farkas
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content