Date: 20080528
Docket: IMM-4730-07
Citation: 2008 FC 684
Ottawa, Ontario, May 28,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
JESUS ROBERTO SALAZAR-SANCHEZ
and
JESUS ROBERTO
SALAZAR-GARCIA
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
This
judicial review application was heard on the same day as Hurtado-Martinez v.
Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2008 FC 630 (the decision there was issued on May 21, 2008).
Both cases relate to findings of state protection in Mexico. The main Applicant
here claimed that he had been targeted by a drug cartel and that neither he nor
his son received adequate assistance from the authorities.
II. BACKGROUND
[2]
In
2005, the principal Applicant, a male citizen of Mexico, discovered
that his brother had allowed a drug cartel to grow drugs on the family
property. He commenced a lawsuit against his brother to regain possession of
the land.
[3]
Between
August 25, 2005 and approximately September 19, 2005, the Applicant was
attacked by his brother and others; his son was abducted from school and
beaten; and the Applicant and his son were the victims of a drive-by shooting.
[4]
Regarding
the first incident, the Applicant claimed that he filed a complaint with the
Public Ministry in Mexico City but that there was no follow-up. As for the
second incident, he states that he filed a report with the local police and there
was also no follow-up.
[5]
With
respect to the third incident, the Applicant filed a report with the police.
Upon being escorted home by police, they discovered that their home had been
ransacked. It was then that the Applicant, his son and a friend disappeared to
a hotel in Mexico
City
for a few days.
[6]
On
the third day, the receptionist told the Applicant that three men who had
identified themselves as police officers came looking for him but that the
friend who had been staying with the Applicant and his son told the “police
officers” that he had not seen either of them. The Applicant and his son left
that hotel and shortly afterwards left for Canada.
[7]
The
Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decided the case solely on the issue of state
protection. The RPD firstly decided that based on documentary evidence, there
were avenues of redress for the Applicant and that Mexico was making
serious efforts to provide protection to those targeted by drug cartels. The
RPD then determined that based on the narrative, although there was no evidence
of ongoing investigations, the Applicant had remedies which he could pursue and
had not. As to the assistance the police had provided, it was determined to be not
perfect but adequate.
III. ANALYSIS
[8]
Even
before the Supreme Court’s decision in Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, the standard of review of findings on state protection was
reasonableness. Nothing in Dunsmuir changes that standard.
[9]
The
overarching proposition that state protection is generally available in Mexico is not at
issue here. The real issue is whether the police were willing and able to provide
adequate state protection to the Applicant in this situation.
[10]
As
the Applicant’s counsel stated in argument, the Applicant’s real complaint is
that the police had not pursued his brother. There was no evidence that the
police had investigated the brother despite the Applicant allegedly pointing
out the culprit to the police.
[11]
The
Applicant’s complaint then is directed more at inadequate law enforcement than
at a failure to afford him protection from the actions of his brother and the
brother’s associates.
[12]
On
the record before the RPD, I cannot see how it could have concluded as a
general proposition that Mexico is not attempting to deal with drug issues
nor, more particularly, that it refused to pursue the Applicant’s brother. The
timeframe for analysis was in the order of three weeks. It is doubtful that
Canadian authorities, faced with a similar situation, would have concluded a
drug investigation of this type in three weeks.
[13]
On
the more germane issue of whether state protection was available to the
Applicant, there is no evidence that the authorities were unwilling or unable
to act. (See Guzman v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 490)
[14]
The
transcript (Certified Tribunal Record, p. 288) disclosed that upon the
complaint of abduction and beating, the police put the Applicant’s son and his
school under surveillance. Further, there is no evidence that the “police
officers” at the hotel were not actually police officers trying to find persons
(the Applicant and son) they had already put under protective surveillance.
[15]
Against
this background, I cannot find the RPD’s conclusion, that adequate state
protection was available to the Applicant and his son, to be unreasonable. The
police had shown a willingness to protect, and took steps to do so yet the
Applicant made no complaint to the police about its effectiveness or adequacy.
The Applicant took no other steps to address any complaints of state protection
he might have had.
IV. CONCLUSION
[16]
Therefore,
this judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Email this Content