Date: 20021206
Docket: IMM-4714-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 1263
BETWEEN:
ANTONIO FIGUEROA
ROSA MARIA MARTINEZ MENDOZA
Applicants
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.
[1] Through an application for judicial review, Rosa Maria Martinez Mendoza and her husband Antonio Figueroa, citizens of Mexico, seek to set aside the decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the panel) delivered on September 18, 2001, ruling that the applicants are not Convention refugees as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act (the Act).
[2] Two of their daughters fled Mexico in August 1999 and were accepted as refugees in Canada in June 2000.
[3] A short time later, the applicants say, certain events occurred that forced them, too, to flee Mexico for Canada:
(1) In June 2000, two of their children noticed a car parked in front of the applicants' residence.
(2) On October 16, 2000, at about 9:00 p.m., the judicial police, seeking their two daughters who were now in Canada, searched their residence, struck Mr. Figueroa and threatened them with death if, within twelve hours, they did not say where their daughters were located. The applicants went to a clinic but did not report this incident to the authorities. They went into hiding with some friends in Orizaba, Vera Cruz.
(3) On November 18, 2000, accompanied by friends, they were intercepted by a car and the two individuals who got out threatened the applicants with death if they did not say where their daughters could be located. The applicants left Orizaba and hid for fifteen days. They left Mexico on December 15, 2000, and claimed refugee status in Canada on December 22, 2000.
[4] The panel did not believe the applicants' story and, in reaching this conclusion, cited the evidence, which it considered strewn with contradictions, improbabilities and omissions. The panel did not accept the explanations provided by the applicants.
[5] The panel cited the following examples:
(1) A contradiction in regard to the place of the assault of October 16, 2000. Their Personal Information Forms (PIF) filled out in Montréal in August 2001 state that the assault occurred at their residence while the medical report of Dr. Juarez, made in Mexico on October 16, 2000, explains that Mr. Figueroa "came to us after being assaulted on the public highway". Confronting the applicants with this disparity, the panel did not accept the explanation (page 510 of the certified record) that if they had told the doctor that the assault occurred at their residence, the authorities would have forced them to lay a complaint with the police who were, they say, the agent of persecution.
(2) One omission is identified. The psychological report of August 2001 describes how, during the assault of October 16, 2000, the police allegedly pointed a weapon at Ms. Martinez Mendoza's temple. However, her PIF, completed with the assistance of her daughter, mentions this only through an amendment on the very day of the hearing. The panel requested some explanations. The applicant replied that she had not told her daughter until August 2001 before going to the psychologist because she was afraid. The panel did not accept the explanation as sufficient. In its view, the omission was important because the psychological consequences of having a weapon pointed at one's temple and being threatened with death are identified as key factors in her fear and her flight.
(3) The panel found it improbable that the judicial police would have waited thirteen and a half months after their departure before they inquired about their two daughters.
(4) The panel notes one further omission. The psychological report of August 2001 does not mention that in June 2000, two of their children noticed that some men in an automobile were surveying the applicants' residence, although this fact is mentioned in their PIF.
(5) The panel wonders about the applicants' behaviour on November 18, 2001. They left the place where they had been hiding to go by automobile to a shopping mall with their friends. The panel was not satisfied with their reply that they had stayed inside the car once they came to the shopping mall.
(6) The panel found it improbable that the applicants waited two months before leaving Mexico after the assault of October 16, 2001. The panel rejected their explanations that they did not have enough money.
[6] In my opinion, this application for judicial review must be dismissed. The panel did not commit any error that would warrant the intervention of this Court. Credibility is at the core of the panel's jurisdiction and the panel could reject the applicants' account on the basis of improbabilities, contradictions and omissions that were identified and supported by the evidence. The panel did not accept the applicants' explanations and clearly explained why. The rejection of their explanations was not unreasonable.
[7] For all these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed. No question need be certified.
"François Lemieux"
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 6, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C.Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: IMM-4714-01
STYLE: ANTONIO FIGUEROA and
ROSA MARIA MARTINEZ MENDOZA
v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: July 30, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
DATED: December 6, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANTS
Guy Lamb FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada