Date:
20130510
Docket:
IMM-7642-12
Citation:
2013 FC 492
Ottawa, Ontario,
May 10, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
|
|
ABANI ISACHAR RODRIQUEZ LLANES
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Abani Isachar
Rodriguez Llanes sought refugee protection in Canada based upon his alleged
fear of the Zetas gang in Mexico, whose wrath he says he had incurred as a
result of his romantic relationship with the girlfriend of “El Milo”, a gang
member.
[2]
The applicant
asserts that the Board erred by finding that his claim had no nexus to a
Convention ground. The Board further erred, the applicant says, by
misidentifying the feared agents of persecution, and in making the unreasonable
finding that the applicant had an internal flight alternative (IFA) in several cities in Mexico.
[3]
For the
reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Board properly understood who the
alleged agents of persecution were in this case, and that its IFA finding was
reasonable. These findings are dispositive of the case, with the result that it
is not necessary to deal with the issue of nexus.
The Identity of the Agents of
Persecution
[4]
The applicant
argues that the Board wrongly focused on El Milo as the agent of persecution,
when it was the Zetas who were feared by the applicant. The Board further erred
by focusing on El Milo’s motivation to find him, rather than the motivation of
the gang itself. According to the applicant, the Board’s focus on El Milo’s
motives failed to take into account the possibility that the Zetas might have
their own reasons for wanting to harm him, namely the desire to preserve the
gang’s honour and integrity.
[5]
It is,
however, clear from the Board’s reasons that it did not misidentify the agent
of persecution, and that it did consider the potential threat to the applicant
posed by the Zetas in addition to that posed by El Milo. References to the
applicant’s alleged fear of both El Milo and the Zetas appear in a number of
places in the Board’s decision. In particular, at paragraph 14 of the decision
the Board specifically addressed the gang’s motivation to find the applicant in
addition to considering the motivation of El Milo himself.
The Reasonableness of the IFA
Finding
[6]
The applicant
also takes issue with the Board’s finding that it had not been established that
El Milo had connections to the Mexican police, submitting that the proper
question for the Board was whether the Zetas had such connections. The
applicant points out that the Board itself recognized that the Zetas are
violent and have “infiltrated many areas”, and that this is confirmed by the
country documentation. As such, the applicant says that the Board’s finding
that he could live safely in other parts of Mexico was unreasonable.
[7]
I do not read
the Board’s reasons to take issue with the reach of the Zetas gang in Mexico, or its ability to locate people when it wants to do so. The question that concerned
the Board was whether the gang itself had any interest in using its resources
and connections to pursue the applicant, or whether it was only El Milo and his
immediate circle that were out to get him.
[8]
In seeking to
demonstrate that the Zetas were after the applicant and would be able to find
him anywhere in Mexico, the applicant relied on an opinion from a history
professor at the University of Winnipeg. Amongst other things, the professor
stated that an affront to one member of the Zetas gang could be considered as
an affront to the honour of the entire gang, prompting the gang as a whole to
seek retribution against the perpetrator of the affront.
[9]
The Board
chose to give this opinion little weight, as the facts relating to the
applicant’s own experience in Mexico upon which the opinion was based and the
extent to which he had been pursued by gang members had not been established by
the evidence. This was a finding that was reasonably open to the Board on the
record before it.
[10]
It was,
moreover, entirely reasonable for the Board to look to the fact that no one had
ever contacted the applicant’s wife or children in his hometown in an effort to
locate him as evidence of the fact that no one other than El Milo and his
immediate associates were interested in the applicant. This finding was based
on the common-sense proposition that if the gang was truly looking for the
applicant, one of the first places it would go is to his family. In contrast,
the theories provided by the applicant in an effort to explain why the gang
might have chosen not to contact his wife are speculative in nature and are not
grounded in the evidence.
[11]
At the end of
the day, the Board was simply not satisfied that anyone outside of El Milo and
his immediate circle had any interest in the applicant or would be motivated to
locate him anywhere in Mexico. In the circumstances, it was reasonably open to
the Board to conclude that the applicant had an IFA elsewhere in Mexico.
[12]
Finally,
I am not persuaded that the decision in Zhuravlvev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 4 F.C. 3, [2000] F.C.J. No. 507, is of
assistance to the applicant. Unlike the situation that confronted the Court in Zhuravlvev,
there is no suggestion that the applicant’s ability to move about within Mexico was in any way restricted.
Certification
[13]
Counsel for
the applicant proposes the following question for certification:
In a refugee protection claim
made under the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act,
where the claimant seeks to establish a well-founded fear of persecution by reason
of membership in a particular social group, can the fact of having committed
adultery, either alone or in combination with other factors, become the basis
for membership in a social group?
[14]
I agree with
the respondent that this is not an appropriate question for certification.
Given my conclusions with respect to the availability of an IFA for the
applicant in Mexico, the answer to the question would not be dispositive of
this case. Consequently, I decline to certify it.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Anne L. Mactavish”
Email this Content