Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20061219

Docket: IMM-910-06

Citation: 2006 FC 1496

BETWEEN:

MIRIAM MABEL MARQUEZ MORALES

MIRIAM DANIELA GONZALEZ MARQUEZ

RODRIGO JESUS GONZALEZ DOSAL

Applicants

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Pinard J.

[1]          This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated January 16, 2006, by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB), that the applicants are neither Convention “refugees” nor “persons in need of protection” according to the definitions in sections 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, on the ground that they lack credibility.

[2]          The panel also found that the applicants failed to establish that they could not avail themselves of the protection of the State of Mexico should they return to their country.

[3]          On the issue of State protection, the applicants submit that the IRB decision is unreasonable, since the documentary evidence before the panel indicates that the Mexican police and courts are corrupt. Although the documentary evidence reports kidnappings and police corruption in Mexico, it also suggests that this country is addressing the situation and reforming its police force. In my view, it is therefore not unreasonable to find that this documentary evidence does not indicate in a clear and convincing manner that the State is unable to protect the applicant. Moreover, the IRB correctly found that the applicants had, in fact, availed themselves of State protection: the Attorney General acted on the complaint of the applicant, Miriam Mabel Marquez Morales, and arrested Vincente Caiseros, an assailant whom she had identified that same day. She also filed a complaint against the father of Vincente Caiseros, a former police officer, but the applicants left Mexico almost immediately, without waiting for the outcome of this other complaint.

[4]          The applicants must provide clear and convincing evidence of the State’s inability to protect them, and they failed to do so (see Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689). Thus, the applicants have not persuaded me that the IRB decision, as it concerns State protection, is unreasonable. That alone is sufficient to dismiss the application for judicial review, without considering the applicants’ lack of credibility.

[5]          Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

“Yvon Pinard”

Ottawa, Ontario

December 19, 2006

Certified true translation

Mary Jo Egan, LLB

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-910-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MIRIAM MABEL MARQUEZ MORALES, MIRIAM DANIELA GONZALEZ MARQUEZ, RODRIGO JESUS GONZALEZ DOSAL v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                      November 8, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard

DATED:                                             December 19, 2006

APPEARANCES:

Manuel Centurion                                FOR THE APPLICANTS

Lisa Maziade                                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Manuel Centurion                                                         FOR THE APPLICANTS

Montréal, Quebec

John H. Sims, Q.C.                                                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada