Date: 20090304
Docket: IMM-3383-08
Citation: 2009 FC 215
Montréal, Quebec, March 4, 2009
PRESENT:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Maurice E. Lagacé
BETWEEN:
EDUARDO SANZON SERNA
JUANA MAGANA MANRIQUE
GUADALUPE ISABEL SANZON MAGANA
JUANA ELIZABETH SANZON MAGANA
MARCO EDUARDO
SANZON MAGANA
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1]
Pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001,
c. 27 (Act), the principal applicant, Eduardo Sanzon Serna (applicant),
his wife, Juana Magana Manrique, and their three children
Juana Élizabeth, Guadalupe Isabel and Marcos Eduardo Sanzon Magana, all Mexican citizens, are seeking judicial review of the
decision dated July 3, 2008, by the Refugee Protection Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD), stating that they are not “refugees” or
“persons in need of protection” under sections 96 and 97 of the Act. Consequently,
their refugee claim was refused, primarily on the ground that they had an
internal flight alternative in Mexico and failed to demonstrate that it would
be unreasonable for them to re-establish their lives in that country. Nor did
they meet their burden of demonstrating a serious risk of persecution on one of
the Convention grounds.
II. Facts
[2]
Following
a collision between a bus driven by the applicant and another vehicle driven by
a motorist whose identity is uncertain (Juan N), the latter berated and
threatened the applicant and demanded payment for the damage to his vehicle.
Despite his reaction when the incident occurred, Juan N subsequently acknowledged
his liability and paid the applicant’s employer for the damage caused to the
bus during the incident.
[3]
Two
weeks after the accident, Juan N saw the applicant at a bus depot, jumped on
him and tried to hit him but left in a rage after the applicant’s co-workers
intervened.
[4]
Some
time later, while the applicant was visiting his in-laws in a neighbouring
municipality, Juan N appeared behind the wheel of a red vehicle, threatening
him and demanding compensation for the damage to his car in the accident. Two
days after this new incident, on July 24, 2007, the applicant went to the
Office of the Public Prosecutor to file a complaint and obtain some protection.
He was told that an investigation would have to be conducted and that, in the
meantime, no protection could be provided to him.
[5]
Instead
of seeking an internal flight alternative for himself and his family while
awaiting the result of the Public Prosecutor’s investigation, the applicant quickly
took the necessary steps to obtain passports for his entire family. On August
9, 2007, the applicant and his family left Mexico by plane and came to Canada seeking
refugee protection, which was denied by the RPD decision of July 3, 2008.
III. Issue
Standard of
review
[6]
Since
this dispute raises a question of mixed fact and law, the Court will apply a
standard of reasonableness to its analysis, as the Supreme Court of Canada stated
in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9.
Existence of
internal flight alternative
[7]
A
careful analysis of the evidence shows that the applicant left Mexico barely
two weeks after filing a complaint with the Public Prosecutor, without allowing
the police to commence a serious investigation and despite the fact that no
other incident had subsequently occurred that would justify such haste.
[8]
The
applicant did not seek an internal flight alternative for himself and his
family, if only temporarily while awaiting the result of the inquiry by the
authorities. He attempts to defend this by claiming that he did not have the
financial resources to move elsewhere in Mexico, yet he was able to pay the
airfare for his entire family to come to Montréal to settle.
[9]
In
the applicant’s view, his life and that of his family would be threatened
everywhere in the vast country of Mexico and the authorities
cannot provide them with the protection they seek. Nonetheless, to this date,
the applicant cannot even confirm the identity of the assailant who threatened
him, other than perhaps his first name, and has not taken any reasonable steps
to obtain more information about the man or to assist the authorities in their
investigation.
[10]
Furthermore,
the applicants disagree with the RPD’s finding that an internal flight
alternative is available to them in Mexico and state that [translation] “there is no evidence in
the record to demonstrate that Juan N does not have the necessary financial
resources to pursue them.” Since the applicants seem to have forgotten, they need
to be reminded that the burden of proof does not lie on the RPD but on their
shoulders. They have not taken any concrete or real steps to establish that
there was a real and concrete risk to their life or safety elsewhere in Mexico. They did
not even seek a temporary internal flight alternative while waiting for the
authorities to conduct an investigation and respond to the applicant’s complaint.
[11]
Refugee
claimants must demonstrate that a real risk to their life or a risk of cruel
and unusual punishment exists throughout their country (Olmos v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 809, paragraph 18). The
applicants did not adduce any evidence upon which the RPD could have made such
a finding.
[12]
Moreover,
the RPD gave appropriate weight to each piece of evidence that had to be assessed
and properly concluded that an internal flight alternative existed and that the
applicants should have considered it and made serious attempts to avail
themselves of it before coming to Canada to seek refuge. The
applicants were wrong to base their application on the prevailing general
situation in Mexico, to make no effort to seek an internal flight alternative
and to provide no evidence that they were personally and genuinely at risk
throughout Mexico.
[13]
The
RPD’s determination as to the existence of an internal flight alternative is
supported by the evidence, which the RPD was responsible for assessing based on
the law and its expertise; the determination is more than reasonable even if
its effect on the applicants’ application does not accord with their
expectation.
[14]
The
validity in fact and in law of this finding by the RPD as to the existence of an
internal flight alternative for the applicants is, in itself, sufficient to dismiss
this proceeding without the Court having to deal with the applicants’ other grievances
concerning the RPD’s decision (Palacios v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2008 FC 816, paragraph 28).
IV. Conclusion
[15]
The
RPD’s decision that an internal flight alternative exists is justified by both the
facts put in evidence and the related law; it is, accordingly, a reasonable
decision that is, in itself, sufficient to dispose of this proceeding. The
application will therefore be dismissed.
[16]
Since
no serious question of general importance was proposed, no question will be
certified.
JUDGMENT
FOR THESE REASONS, THE
COURT:
DISMISSES the
application for judicial review.
“Maurice E. Lagacé”
Certified
true translation
Mary
Jo Egan, LLB
Email this Content