Date: 20110711
Docket: IMM-6719-10
Citation: 2011 FC 867
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, July 11, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
|
|
ODIN JAVIER GONZALEZ TELLEZ
KARLA MONSERRAT ZAMORA ARANDA
PAULA REGINA GONZALEZ ZAMORA
LEONARDO DEMIAN GONZALEZ ZAMORA
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an application
for judicial review of a decision of a member of the Refugee Protection
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the panel), dated
October 25, 2010, rejecting the applicants’ claim for refugee protection.
[2]
The applicants are
Mexican citizens. The principal applicant had been a police officer in Mexico
City, Federal District, since January 2006, after being trained for a
year. In his personal information form (PIF), he alleges that on
September 23, 2007, he participated in a police operation. His job was to wait
outside a house. He heard shots inside, and an individual, who was visibly
injured and holding a package, came running out of the house. His superior
shouted at him to shoot, but the applicant failed to do so.
[3]
The principal applicant
stated that, after this incident, he was blamed, threatened and followed by his
two superiors, and assaulted by strangers on October 10, 2007. He then
realized that the sole purpose of the police operation had been to recover the
package with which the individual had fled. He states that he filed a complaint
reporting his two superiors. He was subsequently transferred from his work
team, but within the same police station, and his superior was transferred
elsewhere. The principal applicant left Mexico on November 14, 2007, and
claimed refugee protection in Canada on February 2, 2008.
[4]
In the meantime, in
October 2007, the principal applicant’s spouse and her children went to
live with her mother-in-law, where she was allegedly followed and watched. After
going to live with her father-in-law in March 2008, she was assaulted by
some individuals who were still looking for her husband on June 8, 2008. On
July 22, 2008, the applicant left Mexico with her children and also
claimed refugee protection in Canada.
[5]
The determinative issue
in this matter is the credibility of the incidents alleged by the principal
applicant and his wife. The principal applicant was the main witness at the
hearing. The panel found that his testimony was filled with contradictions and
implausibilities that seriously affected his credibility regarding the
essential elements of the applicants’ claim for refugee protection.
[6]
The Refugee Protection
Division is a specialized tribunal. Assessing the credibility of witnesses
falls within its exclusive jurisdiction. The applicable standard of review in
such a matter is that of reasonableness (Mejia v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 354, at para. 24).
[7]
There is no reason to
intervene here. It is clear that the panel meticulously examined the applicants’
narrative and identified in its decision a number of points on which the
principal applicant and his wife were not credible. For example, the panel did
not believe the principal applicant’s explanation of his actions when the
individual fled with the package. The principal applicant testified that he did
not shoot at the individual as his superior wanted him to do since it was
illegal to do so, but according to the evidence on the record, it is unclear
whether he heard his superior give him that order. When the panel asked him why
he did not try to stop the individual (without shooting at him), the principal
applicant also provided a confusing explanation. The panel concluded that,
given that the principal applicant had been a police officer for a year and a
half, he should have known that the individual was a suspect. Moreover, at that
time, the principal applicant could not have known that his superiors were
involved in illegal activities. The panel was therefore justified to draw a
negative inference concerning the September 23, 2007, incident.
[8]
Moreover, the panel
gave no probative value to the document filed as Exhibit P-14, which is
allegedly the complaint filed by the principal applicant with the office of the
Public Prosecutor which is responsible for gathering complaints from the public
and linked to the principal applicant’s police station. The panel inquired why
he had not complained to the office of the Inspector General given that he was
reporting his immediate superior and the station commander. According to the
National Documentation Package for Mexico, investigating the Public Prosecutor
and police officers is part of the duties of the office of the Inspector
General. The panel therefore found it unlikely that a police officer was not
aware of the existence of such an office. The panel also deemed it unlikely
that the principal applicant complained to the very office where the superiors
involved worked. Again, the panel’s non-credibility findings relied on the
evidence on file and were not arbitrary or capricious.
[9]
Lastly, the panel gave
no probative value to the document filed as Exhibit P-11, which is
allegedly the complaint filed by the principal applicant’s wife with the Public
Prosecutor. The one-page letter, written and signed by the principal applicant’s
wife, has no official letterhead and makes no mention of the problems allegedly
experienced by the principal applicant. The principal applicant’s wife
testified that she did not know why the letter did not have an official
letterhead and that the police officers had not wanted her to include her
husband’s problems. The panel did not find her explanation reasonable, and
there is no reason to intervene on this point.
[10]
Ultimately, there is no
basis for the death threats other than the September 23, 2007, incident,
on which point the principal applicant was not found to be credible, meaning
that the panel’s overall conclusion to reject the applicants’ refugee
protection claim is reasonable.
[11]
This application for
judicial review must be dismissed. Both counsel agree that this application
does not raise a serious question of general importance.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that
1.
the application for
judicial review is dismissed; and
2.
no
question is certified.
“Luc Martineau”
Certified true translation
Johanna Kratz, Translator
Email this Content