Ottawa, Ontario, the 6th day of September 2006
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul U.C. Rouleau
BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
AND IMMIGRATION
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.
Deputy Judge
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7808-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: Roberto Vasquez Rojas v. M.C.I.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Que.
DATE OF HEARING: August 29, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: ROULEAU D.J.
APPEARANCES:
|
Lenya Kalepdjian
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
Alexandre Tavadian
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Lenya Kalepdjian Montréal, Que.
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |