Date: 20081028
Docket: IMM-1016-08
Citation: 2008 FC 1206
BETWEEN:
ANA ROCIO ALVAREZ BECERRA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR
ORDER
GIBSON D.J.
I. Introduction
[1]
These
reasons follow the hearing at Toronto on the 21st of October, 2008,
of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection
Division (the “Tribunal”) wherein the Tribunal determined the Applicant not to
be a Convention refugee and not to be a person otherwise in need of Canada’s
protection. The decision under review is dated the 28th of January,
2008.
II. Background
[2]
The
Applicant is a female citizen of Mexico in her late 20s.
[3]
The
Applicant alleges that she engaged in a lesbian relationship with the daughter
of her employer. Her employer became aware of this relationship. The
Applicant received a series of threatening telephone calls. While riding a
motorcycle, she and the passenger were struck by a car in circumstances that
led the Applicant to believe that the encounter was intentional. The Applicant
and her passenger were seriously injured in the encounter. The Applicant
underwent surgery in hospital followed by a period of rehabilitation. The
Applicant alleges that before her rehabilitation was completed, she was
required to return to work. Threatening telephone calls continued to the
Applicant even after she was forced to leave her work and changed her residence
within Mexico.
[4]
The
Applicant attempted to file a complaint with the police. Her attempt was
rejected. Subsequently, her father successfully filed a complaint which was
never effectively followed up upon and which was eventually withdrawn under
pressure.
[5]
The
Applicant fled to Canada and claimed Convention refugee status.
III. The Decision under Review
[6]
The
Tribunal summarized documentary evidence before it, though not all such
documentation, to determine first, whether there was in place in Mexico a
legislative framework and an implementation strategy to provide adequate, but
not perfect, protection for gay citizens who live within Mexico City. It
concluded that there was such a legislative framework and implementation strategy.
It wrote:
This review satisfies me the situation
for gays and lesbians may vary from state to state or even large cities to
small towns and rural areas. However, in the D.F. [the Federal District within Mexico City], there is in place a legal
system that provides redress to the rule of law for citizens who have suffered
persecution or serious harm as a result of their sexuality. Further, the
various reports indicate that the situation has shown steady improvement as
noted by the recent changes in the anti-discriminatory laws.
[7]
The
presiding member of the Tribunal then posed the following question to himself:
Would the fact that the agent of
persecution is an influential person with connections to both government and
police personal result in the claimant being deprived from adequate legal recourse
and protection should she be found and suffer persecution or have reason to
believe she will be persecuted in the future?
[8]
Once
again, after reviewing documentary evidence before him, the Tribunal member
concluded:
My reviews satisfies me that, while there
may be areas of Mexico where serious efforts to provide adequate protection as
a result of corruption and criminality are not being made, in the D.F., within
Mexico City, this is not the case.
[9]
The
Tribunal then summarized the submissions of counsel for the Applicant and
concluded:
Considering:
·
there is a
legislative framework and implementation strategy in place to provide
protection for gay citizens of Mexico in the D.F. within Mexico City;
·
the
claimant has failed to show with clear
evidence that these efforts would not
provide her he with adequate protection should she require it in the future;
·
there is
no evidence before me that would support that the D.F. within Mexico City would not be a reasonable
location for the claimant,
·
I am
satisfied that the claimant has failed to show she would not be protected by
the state in all areas of Mexico and that the D.F. within Mexico City is a viable IFA.
IV. Brief Analysis and Conclusion
[10]
It
is trite law that a Tribunal does not have to refer in its reasons to each and
every piece of documentary evidence before it. It is sufficient that its cites
from credible documentation that is before it and that provides evidence that
supports its conclusion. Such is the case here. I am satisfied that the
Tribunal neither ignored evidence put forward on behalf of the Applicant nor
was unreasonably selective in its reliance on documentary evidence before it. A
range of this Court’s decisions on judicial reviews based on essentially
similar factual backgrounds arising in Mexico have reached
the same conclusion as that here under review.
[11]
Against
a standard of review of reasonableness reflecting appropriate deference to the
Tribunal the decision of which is here under review, I am satisfied that the
decision was reasonably open.
[12]
For
the foregoing reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[13]
At
the close of hearing counsel were advised of the Court’s conclusion. Neither
counsel recommended certification of a question. The Court itself is satisfied
that no serious question of general importance that would be dispositive on an
appeal of this decision arises. No question will be certified.
“Frederick E. Gibson”
OTTAWA,
ONTARIO
October
28, 2008
Email this Content