Date: 20111215
Docket: IMM-2630-11
[UNREVISED ENGLISH
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Citation: 2011 FC
1474
Montréal, Quebec, December 15,
2011
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
|
|
JUAN CARLOS AGUILAR SUAREZ
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the Act), of a decision of the
Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada (panel), according to which the applicant, Juan Carlos Aguilar Suarez,
was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
[2]
The
applicant is a Mexican citizen and member of the indigenous population of the
state of Chiapas. Before he
left, he had taught Spanish to the illiterate peasants and indigenous people of
the village
of Acteal. The
applicant claims to fear persecution on the basis of his political opinions and
his activities in support of the indigenous population of Acteal.
[3]
In
fact, the applicant informed peasants of their legal rights as Mexican citizens
and encouraged them to unite and defend their civil rights. He is also alleged
to have helped them in writing complaints about the ill-treatment they endured.
In addition to this, he published articles and pamphlets against the authorities.
[4]
On
April 15, 2009, his students warned him that the Mexican army was looking for him.
The applicant began to feel threatened and decided to obtain a passport one
week later. On May 1, 2009, he went to live with his uncle in the
state of Gutierrez, but continued teaching until the end of the month. On June
25, 2009, he left Mexico for Canada, and filed a claim for refugee protection
one month later.
[5]
Although
the panel determined that the applicant’s activities constituted a political
opinion within the meaning of section 96 of the Act, it found that the
applicant had failed to establish a subjective fear and that, even though it
had arrived at this conclusion, there was a viable internal flight alternative
available to him.
[6]
The
panel found it implausible that the applicant would have continued teaching on
a regular basis from April 15 until the end of May 2009, or up until the third
week of the month of June 2009, if he truly feared persecution. Similarly,
since the applicant continued teaching at the community centre for two months
after obtaining his passport on April 21, 2009, the panel concluded that his
having obtained the passport was in no way connected to a fear of persecution.
[7]
In
addition, the panel determined that is was reasonable to have expected the
applicant to seek an internal flight alternative in Mexico. He failed
to demonstrate why he could not have moved to Mexico City, Veracruz or
Guadalajara. While the
applicant claimed that the army was everywhere and that he could be found
through his voter’s card or the national database of cell phone subscribers (RENAUT),
there is no convincing evidence to support this argument. Furthermore, the
applicant would be able to find employment as a teacher anywhere in Mexico, and it
would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harmful to expect him to move
to one of the aforementioned IFAs. I am of the opinion that this finding is
reasonable and that it alone is sufficient to dispose of this application for
judicial review without having to deal with the issue of credibility.
[8]
In
fact, the case law imposes on the applicant the burden of establishing, on a
balance of probabilities, that no internal flight alternative existed in that
part of the country cited by the panel as an internal flight alternative and
that it was objectively unreasonable for him to avail himself of it (Rasaratnam
v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706, 140 NR
138 (FCA); Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
[1994] 1 FC 589, 163 NR 232 (FCA)).
[9]
In
this case, the applicant failed to establish either the lack of an IFA in Mexico or that it
would have been unreasonable for him to move to Mexico City, Veracruz or Guadalajara.
[10]
When
the panel member asked the applicant about IFAs, he simply stated [translation] “that he did not know what
would happen, because the Mexican army is everywhere and that it would be
looking for him”. The applicant claimed he could be located through his voter’s
card or through the RENAUT database. However, the panel dismissed these explanations,
preferring instead to give more weight to the documentary evidence, which did
not show that the authorities had used voter’s cards or the database to locate
anyone as of yet.
[11]
As
for the second prong of the test, the panel was of the view that it was not
unreasonable to expect the applicant to avail himself of the proposed IFAs, as
he would have been able to find employment as a teacher anywhere in Mexico. Once again,
the applicant failed to demonstrate how such a finding was objectively unreasonable.
[12]
Accordingly,
the Court’s intervention is not warranted and the application for judicial
review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the application for
judicial review is dismissed.
“Danièle
Tremblay-Lamer”
Certified true
translation
Sebastian Desbarats,
Translator
Email this Content