Date: 20060906
Docket: IMM-7808-05
Citation:
2006 FC 1059
Ottawa, Ontario, the 6th day of September 2006
Present:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul U.C. Rouleau
BETWEEN:
ROBERTO VASQUEZ ROJAS
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection
Division dated December 5, 2005, that the applicant is not a Convention
refugee under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act (IRPA).
[2]
The
applicant, Roberto Vasquez Rojas, is 36 years old and a citizen of Mexico.
[3]
His
agent of persecution is one Francisco Garduno, Secretary of Public
Transportation of the Federal District. The applicant claims that he exposed
the illegal sale, by Garduno and his subordinates, of public transport permits
to their friends and political allies. Under the law, all carriers are entitled
to obtain permits at no charge.
[4]
The
applicant began working for a transportation business as a truck driver in
2002, transporting computers locally. He took the necessary steps to obtain a
federal permit so that he could drive anywhere in the country. It was then that
he saw for himself the corruption in granting federal permits, because he had
to pay Secretariat employees to obtain his permit.
[5]
In
2003, the applicant decided to form a public transport union to demand
compliance with the labour laws and to expose the Secretariat’s illegal
procedures.
[6]
Between
April 5, 2005, and June 7, 2005, as the process for registering the union began
to take shape, the applicant claims that he encountered problems that forced
him to leave his country.
[7]
The
applicant alleges that he suffered persecution in the form of threats,
imprisonment, an assassination attempt, torture, physical assaults,
surveillance and telephone calls from judicial police officials working for
Garduno.
[8]
On
June 7, 2005, he arrived in Canada. He made a claim for refugee protection on
June 10, 2005.
[9]
The
panel found that the applicant failed to discharge his burden of establishing
that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Mexico and/or that he would
be subjected personally to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual
treatment or punishment.
[10]
First,
the panel determined that the applicant failed to adduce clear and convincing
evidence that the State of Mexico was unable to ensure his protection. On the
contrary, the documentary evidence convinced the panel that there is a legal
and statutory framework capable of protecting Mexican nationals. The panel,
therefore, concluded that the applicant did not exhaust all available remedies
before seeking international protection.
[11]
When
questioned about this, the applicant testified that he had consulted a lawyer
who offered to go with him to the Ministry of Delegation of Complaints against
Public Workers, and that they, in fact, went there to lodge complaints three or
four times between January and April 2004.
[12]
However,
the applicant was unable to explain why he had not indicated this on his
Personal Information Form (PIF). In fact, he stated that he had filed
complaints while taking steps to obtain his permit and before establishing his
union. He explained that he did not have copies of the complaints filed because
he would have had to pay for them.
[13]
The
panel rejected these explanations because the evidence established that the
applicant arrived in Canada on June 7, 2005, and signed his PIF on July 20,
2005. He therefore had ample time to make the necessary additions to his PIF. Moreover,
he had a second opportunity at the hearing to make any corrections or changes
that he considered relevant, but he failed to do so.
[14]
On
April 5, 2005, the applicant lodged a complaint, Exhibit P-3, with the Benito
Juarez Public Prosecutor’s office. The panel was not satisfied with this
document because it contained little information about the alleged persecutors,
the judicial police officials, and nothing about the theft of computers or the
physical abuse he claims to have suffered.
[15]
The
applicant testified that the Prosecutor’s office registered his complaint, and
gave him a number so that he could go to the office of the delegation of
complaints against “public servants” of Istacalco in the Federal District.
[16]
The
applicant testified that he did not go to the delegation office, as he heard
that no one would listen to him, because it is impossible to lodge a complaint
against Fransisco Garduno. A little later, he testified that he did not go
because he already had his plane tickets for Canada, he knew he was leaving
and, therefore, there would be no follow up on the complaint.
[17]
The
applicant testified that this information was not in his PIF because he feared
for his children and he intended to leave the city. The panel was not satisfied
with the applicant’s explanations.
[18]
The
applicant was also unable to explain why documents P-3 and P-2 (which is a
detailed report of the Human Rights Commission) contained numerous errors in
dates and bore no official seals.
[19]
The
court is of the view that the applicant did not make sufficient efforts to seek
police protection, especially since the agent of persecution was not the state.
Even if the applicant did not go to the police for fear it was corrupt, he
could have lodged a complaint with other offices, other organizations.
[20]
The
applicant explained that he did not ask for protection on arriving in Canada
because he did not know that he could request refugee protection, that he was
afraid of being returned and that he was awaiting information from his uncle
before taking the necessary steps. The court is of the view that this behaviour
does not demonstrate a subjective fear on the part of the applicant.
[21]
This
application for judicial review should be dismissed because adequate state
protection is available to the applicant in Mexico.
[22]
First,
the panel concluded that the applicant was not credible because of several
omissions in his PIF when compared to his testimony at the hearing.
[23]
Second,
the applicant failed to establish that state protection in Mexico is inadequate.
[24]
With
respect to the first point, i.e. the lack of credibility, after reviewing the
PIF, the notes at the point of entry and the transcript of the hearing of
October 27, 2005, I am not persuaded that there really is a lack of
credibility. I did not find clear inconsistencies or serious omissions between
these three documents. However, in any event, I would dismiss this application
for judicial review on the basis of adequate state protection in Mexico.
[25]
In
the transcript of the hearing of October 27, at page 125 of the tribunal
record, the panel asked the applicant whether he had lodged new complaints with
other authorities. The applicant replied that he had not because he had already
decided to abandon the union and to leave his city.
[26]
In
its decision, the panel noted that the applicant could have sought help from
the investigation office of the preventive police or from other organizations
at the federal level. The applicant also failed to adduce persuasive evidence
that he could not be safe in another town in Mexico.
[27]
For
all these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial review is
dismissed. No question was submitted for certification.
“Paul U.C. Rouleau”
Certified true
translation
Mary Jo Egan
Email this Content