Date: 20050120
Docket: IMM-2145-04
Citation: 2005 FC 93
Toronto, Ontario, January 20th, 2005
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
ISRAEL RUBIO VALDES
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Despite the able argument of counsel for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board committed any error in determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
[2] Mr. Valdes, a 23-year-old Mexican, is openly gay. As a young man, he lived with his family in Saltillo, Mexico. He reports that he moved to Monterrey, a larger city, after experiencing two incidents in his local neighbourhood. He subsequently experienced an additional two incidents in Monterrey. He alleges that he is at risk, as a homosexual, in Mexico.
[3] The RPD characterized Mr. Valdes as a credible witness whose oral testimony was consistent with his written submissions. It believed his accounts of the troubles he had experienced. It concluded, however, that state protection was available, that Mr. Valdes had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mexico City and that it was not unreasonable for him to seek refuge there.
[4] The RPD provided a detailed and comprehensive review of the documentary evidence with respect to state protection and with respect to Mexico City as an IFA. It considered the circumstances with respect to police corruption, the attitude of the Mexican population towards homosexuals, the closing of the human rights office in Mexico, the murder of a Mexican gay rights leader, and the laws being passed against transvestites. However, based on the totality of the documentary evidence, the board concluded that the government has attempted to provide more protection to homosexuals over the years and that many advocacy groups have sprung up in Mexico. It noted the government's measures to curb corruption in the police and judicial systems. With respect to police corruption, when complaints are handled by the police improperly, recourse is available through the office of the internal comptroller of the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica (PRD), which was reorganized in 2001 to deal more harshly with corruption cases. The board also referred to examples of sexual minorities in public life, including an openly bisexual man appointed as ambassador to Cuba.
[5] With respect to IFA specifically, the RPD cited, among other things, the Redding report dated May 2000, that referenced the "improving climate towards homosexuals in many big cities" with the result that "gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who live in the more intolerant rural areas and smaller urban areas do have internal relocation options". The board noted the increase in gay rights in a number of cities and the existence of a gay community newspaper in Jalisco as well as the gay pride parade in Mexico City. The RPD concluded, on the whole, that Mr. Valdes was a young man capable of finding employment in Mexico. He could seek support from the substantial gay population in Mexico City and from the governmental and non-governmental humans rights and activist groups. He would not have to hide his sexual characteristics. The board indicated sympathy for the reluctance of Mr. Valdes to seek state protection but determined, nonetheless, that he had an obligation to make an attempt to do so and had not.
[6] I see no basis for the argument that the board's conclusion was at odds with the documentary evidence before it. On the contrary, the RPD thoroughly canvassed that evidence and it cannot be said that its determination was not reasonably open to it. An applicant who seeks to establish that an IFA is unreasonable must meet a very high threshold: Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164(C.A.) The fact that life may be better in Toronto than in Mexico City will not suffice.
[7] The arguments, in reality, constitute an attempt to have me reweigh the evidence. That is not my function. The finding that an IFA exists is supported by the evidence and Mr. Valdes did not meet the threshold referred to in Ranganathan, supra. My intervention is not warranted.
[8] Counsel did not suggest a question for certification and none arises.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-2145-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ISRAEL RUBIO VALDES
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 19, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: JANUARY 20, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Kirk J. Cooper
FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Stephen H. Gold
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Kirk J. Cooper
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20050120
Docket: IMM-2145-04
BETWEEN:
ISRAEL RUBIO VALDES
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Email this Content