Date: 20100412
Docket: IMM-3481-09
Citation: 2010 FC 382
Ottawa, Ontario, April 12, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
MA ESTHER HERNANDEZ GARCIA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Ms. Ma Esther Hernandez Garcia maintains that she fled Mexico and sought
refugee protection in Canada to escape her abusive ex-partner. A panel of the
Immigration and Refugee Board concluded that her account of events, which
included incidents of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, was true. In
addition, the Board accepted that Ms. Hernandez Garcia had gone to police, and
that the police refused to do anything to help her. Nevertheless, the Board
rejected her claim. The Board concluded that Ms. Hernandez Garcia should have
tried to get help from other agencies serving victims of domestic violence. In
addition, it found that she would be safe if she moved from Guadalajara to Mexico
City; i.e., she had an “internal flight alternative” (IFA).
[2]
Ms. Hernandez Garcia argued that the Board erred in its finding that she
should have done more to try to get protection in Mexico, and in its conclusion
regarding an IFA in Mexico City. She asks me to order another panel of the
Board to reconsider her claim. In my view, the Board’s decision on an IFA was
reasonable and its decision should be upheld on that ground. Therefore, I must
dismiss this application for judicial review.
[3]
Given my conclusion about an IFA, it is unnecessary to consider
the issue of state protection. The only issue is whether the Board’s decision
regarding an IFA was reasonable.
II. Analysis
(a) Factual
background
[4]
In 2005, Ms. Hernandez Garcia met her partner, Aron Morales Cervantes.
She and Aron moved in together in 2006.
[5]
Aron often behaved abusively after drinking. He was particularly
aggressive after she took a business trip to Canada in 2006. He accused her of
infidelity. Things got worse after that. She needed medical attention after an
assault in November 2006.
[6]
In 2007, she decided to return to live with her family. Aron stalked
her, demanding that she return to him. He kidnapped and raped her.
[7]
Ms. Hernandez Garcia went to the police. However, the officer she spoke
to blamed her for the problem. Somehow, Aron found out that she had gone to the
police. He suggested she was wasting her time; he had good contacts with the
police.
[8]
To get away from Aron, Ms. Hernandez Garcia decided to move from
Zapotlenjo to Guadalajara to live with family members in April 2007. Just a few
weeks later, Aron found her. In September 2007, Aron kidnapped and raped her
again. Her uncle, with whom she was living, insisted she report the offence to
the police. An officer “begrudgingly” took a report.
[9]
Shortly afterwards, Aron told her that he was aware she had contacted
the police again. She fled to another family member’s home approximately an
hour away, where she stayed until December 2007. When she learned that Aron had
contacted and threatened her family members, she decided to come to Canada.
(b) The Board’s
decision
[10]
The Board noted the broad range of services available in Mexico City and
concluded that Ms. Hernandez Garcia would have access to better protection
there.
[11]
Further, the Board found that Ms. Hernandez Garcia could easily move to Mexico
City and find a job and, therefore, it was reasonable for her to seek refuge
there.
(c) Was the Board’s
conclusion regarding an IFA unreasonable?
[12]
Ms. Hernandez Garcia was specifically asked if she could live safely in Mexico
City. She said she could not, because Aron could easily find her there. The
Board observed that Aron might have some police contacts in Zapotlenjo, but not
in Mexico City.
[13]
Ms. Hernandez Garcia submits that the Board did not seriously consider the
possibility that Aron could track her down in Mexico City. Further, she argues
that the Board failed to note the ineffectiveness of many programs and services
designed to assist victims of domestic violence, including those in Mexico City.
[14]
The Board was clearly aware of the problems with domestic violence in Mexico.
Many women are unaware of the resources available to them and, consequently,
crimes against women are underreported. Police and other public officials are
often dismissive of or, at best, indifferent to these crimes.
[15]
The Board noted that Aron seemed to have learned Ms. Hernandez Garcia’s
whereabouts from police contacts, suggesting corruption within the police.
However, it found that in this area, Mexico is making serious efforts at reform.
There are various agencies to which one can complain about corruption on the
part of public officials.
[16]
However, in its discussion of an IFA, the Board stated that there was no
reason to believe Aron could track down Ms. Hernandez Garcia in Mexico City. It
seemed to have overlooked the fact that Aron had located Ms. Hernandez Garcia
in Guadalajara. Obviously, if he could track her down there, there was at least
a possibility that he could find her in Mexico City.
[17]
I do not regard this as a serious error on the Board’s part given that
it went on to consider the availability of sources of protection in Mexico City
for persons who fear domestic violence. In other words, the Board considered
what resources would be available to Ms. Hernandez Garcia if Aron did pursue
her there.
[18]
As I read the Board’s reasons, it carefully considered the special
programs available only in the Federal District of Mexico City. Ms. Hernandez
Garcia brought to my attention evidence suggesting that programs in the various
states are deficient, but nothing that cast serious doubt on what the Board
said about Mexico City. The programs available there appear to be more
prevalent, more serious and more helpful than in the various states. Further,
Ms. Hernandez Garcia did not dispute the Board’s conclusion that she could move
there and find employment with relative ease.
[19]
In light of the evidence before the Board about the sources of
protection in Mexico City, I cannot find its conclusion about an IFA for Ms.
Hernandez Garcia was unreasonable.
III.
Conclusion
and Disposition
[20]
The Board carefully considered the documentary evidence about
programs and services available to women who fear, or have been victims of,
domestic violence in Mexico City. I cannot find its conclusion that Ms.
Hernandez Garcia could live safely there, even if Aron could find her, was
unreasonable. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and
none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is
that
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content