 
RPD.15.7 (October 2007) Disponible en français 
   
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TA5-06607  Private Proceeding / Huis clos  
DE NOVO 
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision 
  Claimant(s) 
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d’asile  
 
  
  
Date(s) of Hearing March 26, 2009 Date(s) de l’audience  
 
  
  
Place of Hearing TORONTO Lieu de l’audience  
 
  
  
Date of Decision    May 6, 2009 Date de la décision  
 
  
  
Panel V. Rangan Tribunal  
 
  
  
Counsel for the Claimant(s) RoberXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) du / de la / des demandeur(e)(s) d’asile  
 
  
  
Tribunal Officer Nil Agent(e) des tribunaux  
 
  
  
Designated Representative(s) Nil Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s)  
 
  
  
Counsel for the Minister XXXXXXXXXXX du ministre  
 
  
 
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
1 XXXXX  XXXXX  XXXXX  XXXXX , the claimant is a citizen of Mexico.  He seeks refugee protection refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
1 (IRPA). ALLEGATIONS
 The claimant in his Personal; Information Form (PIF)
2, alleges that he was discriminated in Mexico because he was diagnosed to be aff licted with HIV.  Although he faced discrimination as a result of his sexual orientation, he was also  terminated from employment because he was suffering he was HIV positive.  He had contracted HIV in 1993 in 
XXXXX  at which he was working in a 
XXXXX .  The lab that diagnosed his condition reported it to the XXXXX  and he was terminated from employment.  He also face d discrimination from his colleagues and friends and finally he was able to find employment in th e private sector.  When his condition came to light he was terminated by the president of the company.  Unable to tolerate the situation, the claimant went to the United States of America (USA) in 
XXXXX  1996 and remained there until April 2005.  He had legal status in the country as a visitor for one year; a training visa for another year and later as a student.  He was then out of status for one year and unable to legalize his position.  The claimant returned to Mexico  for six days and then came to Canada in May 2005 and made a refugee claim.   ISSUES AND DETERMINATION 1. Do acts of discrimination against the clai mant because of his HIV condition amount to persecution when considered singularly or cumulatively?  In this regard the panel will also address Mr. Justice XXXXXXX’s comment on the issue to be reviewed at this hearing, as he asked whether the claimant had proven that systemic barriers associated with HIV testing and employment amounted to pe rsecution on a balance of probability.
3  2. Is there a viable Internal Flight Alternative in the particular circumstances of the claimant in the context of his HIV positive condition? 3. State Protection DETERMINATION I find that the claimant is not a Convention re fugee as the evidence does not establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Me xico on any of the Convention grounds.  I also find that the claimant is not a person in need of  protection, in that his removal to Mexico would 
                                                           
1  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27. 
2  Exhibit C-1. 
3  FC-2.  
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
2 not subject him personally to a risk to his life, or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and in that there are no substantial grounds to believe that his removal to Mexico would subject him personally to a danger of torture.  ANALYSIS This is a hearing XXXXXXX.  Mr. Justice XXXXXXX had ordered that the decision of the previous panel be set aside and the matter be referred back to a newly constituted panel.
4   The panel will revisit the issues identified by the Federal Court, in addition to those issues identified at the start of the XXXXXXX hearing.   The panel accepts the claimant’s identity as  a gay person who has been afflicted with HIV.  He was diagnosed as being HIV positive in 1991.  The claimant testified that he had faced discrimination as a result of his medical condition.   Evidence shows that the claimant was employed as a 
XXXXX  with XXXXX  XXXXX  
XXXXX  from 1989 to 1992.  When he was diagnosed as  HIV positive, he told his colleagues and his supervisor that he had 
XXXXX  that required frequent tests and medications.  The human resources department at the 
XXXXX  enquired at the laboratory the reason for so many special tests.  They were told that the claimant had HIV.  In 1992, he was asked to resign on the grounds that the medical bills were too high.  They gave him an option to either resign with severance pay or be fired from employment without any fina ncial benefits.  He had no choice but to resign since he needed the money to sustain himself until he could find another job.    In order to be independent, the claimant started his own business and was doing quite well until his brothers started interfering with his customers and staff as they were angry with him on an issue related to inheritance of propert y.  His business dwindled because the staff and customers were threatened by his brothers.  He ha d to close his business.  The panel finds that the personal vendetta against him by his brothers had a big role to play in the closing of his business. The claimant went to work for a company called 
XXXXX XXXXX .  He was fired from this job because he was gay and had HIV.  Me dical exams prior to being offered the position revealed his HIV status and he was not offered the position.   DISCRIMINATION VS. PERSECUTION The Courts have identified qualities that cons titute persecution; i.e. the harm feared by the claimant would have to be related to a basic human right, and may be characterized as 
                                                           
4  Exhibit FC-2, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment. 
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
3 potentially repetitious, persistent or systematic.5  The decision-maker must have regard to the interests of the claimant affected by the alleged persecution.  In XXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXX (in dissent) reiterated that "the essential question is whether the persecution alleged by the claimant threatens his or her basic human rights in a fundamental way."
6  The Federal Court of Appeal has observed that "the dividing line between persecution a nd discrimination or harassment is difficult to establish."
7  To be considered persecution, the mist reatment suffered or anticipated must be serious.   In order to determine whether particular mi streatment would qualify as "serious", one must examine what interest of the claimant might be harmed; and to what extent, the subsistence, enjoyment, expression or exercise of that interest might be compromised.
8  The requirement that the harm be serious has led to a distincti on as between persecution on the one hand and discrimination and harassment on the other, with  persecution being characterized by the greater seriousness of the mistreatment involved.
9 The UNHCR Handbook,
10 at paragraph 54, states, “Differences in the treatment of various groups do indeed exist to a greater or lesser extent in many societies.  Persons who receive less favourable treatment as a result of such differences are not necessarily victims of persecution.  It is only in certain circumstances that discrimination will amount to persecution.”  This is often considered to be when the anti cipated mistreatment involves a denial of a fundamental human right. A review of the documentary evidence shows discrimination against HIV positive is prevalent in Mexico.  A review of the documents
11 submitted by the claimant states, Deep-rooted homophobia and AIDS stigma prevent people from testing for HIV, seeking HIV/AIDS care and, in some cases , even from receiving it, patients and experts said at the 17
th International AIDS conference in Mexico City.  Many compared the discrimination to that faci ng the US patients in the 1980s, when the predominance of the disease among ga ys led to a homophobic backlash.”  
                                                           
5  XXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration ) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.); XXXXXXX (XXXXXXX), XXXXX v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2200-93), Denault, February 2, 1994. 
6  XXXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration ), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593; affirming XXXX v. (Canada Minister of Employment and Immigration ), [1993] 3 F.C. 675 (C.A.).  
7  XXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration ) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.).  
8  Canada (Attorney General) v. XXXX, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689. 
9  XXXXXX, Muni Kumar v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-120), XXXXX, June 17, 1993; XXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration ) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.). 
10  Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, January 1992.  
11  Exhibit C-10, item 14, “ Mexico: AIDS Stigma Rampant in Mexico. 
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
4 A survey last year by the National Co mmission for Preventing Discrimination found that just 40% of Mexicans would be  willing to live with someone with HIV, and only 20% would be willing to employ them.  Many patients report discrimination and abuse from nurses and doctors, including doctors who will not perform critical procedures ...    HIV and AIDS reproduce in a brutal way the stigmas and discrimination that are already present in [Mexican] society, quot ed the President of the Mexico City’s Human Rights Commission.  The same document also states that last December a gastroenterologist at a Mexican Hospital refused to perform diagnostic proce dure on a HIV positive patient claiming it posed a risk to staff members.  Under pressure fr om National Human Rights Commission and the Anti Discrimination Commission, the doctor finally relented and received an administrative reprimand.  In the panel’s view this is evidence  of the state or state funded authorities taking steps to address a situation in a positive and meaningful way. While arguing the case before Justice XXXXXXXX, counsel for the claimant argued and concurred by Justice XXXXXXX, although lack of employment is generally not a sufficient reason to determine a person to be in need of protecti on, barriers to employment affect an HIV positive person in a “uniquely discriminatory way.”    Counsel submits that the claimant would not have a livelihood in Mexico.  He continues to state that the ability to make a living is a ba sic human right, the systematic denial of which is an element of persecution.  The claimant has already experienced twice losing good jobs and the inability to secure employment simply because of  his HIV status and sexuality to a point that he could only resort to starting his own business.  The claimant stated that even if he finds work, the common requirement of medical examinations woul d inevitably reveal his status and bring about termination as it has done in the past.  Counsel submits that these systemic barriers associated with HIV testing and employment amounts to pe rsecution on a balance of probability.  The claimant has been subject to physical abuse by the police.  Medical report
12 confirms that bruises to different parts of the body resulting fr om the kicks he had received.     While I sympathize with the claimant’s situa tion and agree in part to counsel’s argument, the panel finds that the claimant has experience of being an independent entrepreneur and there is no persuasive evidence before me that there are barriers for HIV positive Mexicans to start a  
                                                           
12  Exhibit C-8, p. 666 of Federal Court documents and p. 4 of C-8. 
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
5 business.  He has the education and the business “know how.”  There is no persuasive evidence that his right to earn a living would in any be jeopardized because of his illness.   The claimant testified that he had faced problems in Mexico because of his sexual orientation.  He stated that being gay was a bigger problem fo r him than being a person afflicted with HIV.  He later stated that he can’t c hoose between the two problems because he has been discriminated for both reasons.  He told the pa nel that he cannot go to any organization that would help him with his problem and he was very sure that the police would not help a person who is gay and afflicted with HIV.   As stated before the panel concurs with counsel  that there is discrimination in Mexico for those persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS.  However,  there is no persuasive evidence before me that these acts of discrimination that the claimant had encountered since 1991 as a result of his medical condition, amounts to persecution wh en considered singularly or cumulatively. Even if I have erred in my analysis on this issue, there is evidence that the government of Mexico has taken steps to address the issue and install mechanisms in place to deal with the situation. STATE PROTECTION There is a presumption that a state is capable of protecting its citizens, and to rebut this presumption, the claimant must provide “clear an d convincing proof” of the state’s inability to protect.
13  Further, the claimant must approach his or her state for protection, providing state protection might reasonably be forthcoming.
14  Refugee claims are not meant to permit an applicant the opportunity to seek better protec tion abroad than he would receive at home.
15  No government can guarantee the protecti on of all its citizens at all times.
16  It is not enough for a claimant merely to show that his government has not always been effective at protecting persons in his particular situation.
17  The question to be considered is whether the claimant has a well founded fear of being persecuted, rather than whether he could live in his country without attracting adverse consequences.   I have addressed the issue of government’s effort s to deal with this issue, in part in my analysis on IFA.  In the following paragraphs I will address the credible documentary evidence in relation to this issue.   
                                                           
13  Canada (Attorney General) v. XXXX , [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689. 
14  Canada (Attorney General) v. XXXX , [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689.  
15  Canada (Attorney General) v. XXXX , [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689.  
16  Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. XXXXXXXXXXX (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.). 
17  Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. XXXXXXXXXXX (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.).  
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
6 The quote by the New Zealand Refugee St atus Appeal Authority in the article18 submitted by counsel states: Understanding the predicament of “being pers ecuted” as the sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights demonstr ative of a failure of state protection means that the refugee definition is to be  approached not from the perspective of what the refugee claimant can do to avoid being persecuted, but from the perspective of the fundamental human ri ght in jeopardy and the resulting harm.  The panel accepts that life with people afflicte d with HIV is not a bed of roses.  I have reviewed the documentary evidence and find that the government of Mexico has taken steps to address the situation.  The claimant could al ways approach the State Commission for Human Rights (CEDH) or National Human Rights Commi ssion (CNDH) if he was unfairly dismissed from his job or was not hired by them on the basis of his HIV situation.  The claimant took the severance pay offered to him and failed to co mplain the matter to this organization.   Documentary evidence states: Beyond the services provided through SI AC and the PGR, the National Human Rights Commission (Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos, CNDH), state- level human rights commissions (comisi ones estatales de derechos humanos, CEDHs) and, in Mexico City, the Fede ral District Human Rights Commission (Centro de Derechos Humanos del Distri to Federal, CDHDF) also offer avenues of recourse for some victims of human rights violations (CDHDF 28 Nov. 2006; CDHFFV 28 Nov. 2006). Established in  1990, the CNDH is an independent, federally funded institution whose mandate is  to address complaints connected to human rights violations committed by federal public servants and authorities (CNDH 30 Nov. 2006). In general, the C NDH receives complaints, carries out investigations, mediates conflicts betw een complainants and allegedly abusive public authorities, and proposes non-bi nding recommendations (XXXXXX et al 2004, 224). According to RXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Technical Secretary at the CDHDF, all human rights commissions  provide recommendations when a particular human rights violation is serious, systemic and ongoing within a particular government institution (28 Nov. 2006). These recommendations are meant to highlight a human rights proble m within the authority in question and offer direction on how this problem could be remedied.  However, the CNDH is expressly prohibite d from reviewing judicial decisions, labour disputes, and acts and decisions of electoral officials. It has no legal power to compel government agencies to provide information to it, and the resolutions of the Commission may call for action, but the CNDH has no legal power of enforcement. (XXXXXX et al 2004, 225)”  In 2004, a new federal institution called th e National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination (Consej Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminacion, 
                                                           
18  Exhibit C-10, item 11, p. 13 of the article and p. 31 of the package. 
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
7 CONAPRED) was created (CONAPRED 23 Nov. 2006). CONAPRED' mandate is to address all forms of discrimination committed by federal authorities and individuals, including private sector entities (ibid.). Among other responsibilities, CONAPRED provides recourse to victims of discrimination, including discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation (ibid.). CONAPRED also works on educational, research and pub lic policy development to advance the country's prevention efforts and legal framew orks with regard to discrimination in all its forms (ibid.). CONAPRED has a Directorate of Claims and Complaints (Direccion de Quejas y Reclamacione s), which investigates alleged discriminatory acts and applies administ rative measures where necessary to remedy particular situations (ibid.). The Directorate also provides consultation services for those seeking information about discrimination.
19   The panel is not denying that there is discrimination.  However, the issue is whether the government has taken steps to address the issu e posed by this group of people.  Documentary evidence states:
20 The CNDH is mandated to investigate complaints of human rights abuses committed by federal government employ ees and institutions (CNDH 30 Nov. 2006). Much of the work carried out by the CNDH in the area of sexual orientation is related to human rights violations affecting men who have sex with other men, including individuals with HIV/ AIDS (ibid.). According to statistics provided to the Research Directorate by the CNDH's XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, more than 570 HIV/AIDS-related complaints  were lodged with the commission between 1992 and October 2006 (ibid.). Thes e complaints centred on such issues as the alleged denial of adequate health services or medication, acts of discrimination or negligence by medical personnel, and violations of confidentiality (ibid.). Almost 44 percen t of the complaints came from the DF, while the states of Jalisco, Mexico and Nuevo Leon were the next three most frequent sources (ibid.). Subsequently, the CNDH issued a number of recommendations to state and federal inst itutions, including hospitals, prisons and educational facilities, requesting that they  improve their services for persons with HIV/AIDS (ibid.). Of the twenty federa l institutions involved, thirteen complied with the recommendations, two were in the process of complying, four were deemed to have provided unsatisfactory results and one refused to accept the recommendations (ibid.).  I have reviewed the documents on file a nd find that although medical treatment is available and organizations to deal with di scrimination have been set up, documentary evidence
21 while acknowledging that this organization ha s made some valuable contributions to human rights promotion in Mexico over the years, providing detailed and authoritative 
                                                           
19  Exhibit R-1, National Documentary Package , June 27, 2008, tab.2.4, Issue Paper, “Mexico:  Situation of Witnesses to Crime and Corruption, Women Victims of Violence and Victims of Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation”, section 
2.3, “Avenues of recourse and victim assistance programs”.  
20  Exhibit R-1, tab 2.4, section 5.2, “State protection efforts.” 
21  Exhibit R-1, tab 2.5, Human Rights Watch, February 2008, “Summary and Recommendations.”  
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
8 information on specific human rights cases and usef ully documenting some systemic obstacles to human rights progress, it is very critical of th e Human Rights Organization in stating it has not fulfilled into mandate fully.   However, where a state is in effective control of its territory, has military, police, and civil authority in place and makes serious efforts to pr otect its citizens, the mere fact that it is not always successful at doing so will not be enough to justify a claim that the victims are unable to avail themselves of such protection.
22  There clearly was an onus on the claimant to approach the police in Mexico before he sought the protection of Canada.  In Szucs,
23 the Federal Court Trial Division, in determining the availability of state protection, held that the claimant should take reasonable steps in the circumstances to seek prot ection in her or his country of origin.  While the claimant is not required to show that he has exhausted all avenues of protection, he has rather to show that he has taken all steps reasonable in the circumstances.
24  By the claimant never going to the police, I simply cannot find that he has taken all steps reasonable in the circumstances. Based on the documentary evidence and the particular facts of this case, I find that the claimant did not take all or even any reasonable steps to seek protection in Mexico before seeking protection in Canada.  The claimant has not rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence
25 of the state’s inability to protect him. Availability of healthcare to treat HIV/AIDS pa tients is not an issue before the panel.  In fact a program was established after 2000 election to provide full antiretroviral cocktail therapy for all persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS who coul d not otherwise afford the treatment.  Although the program brought forth by President XXXXXXXXXXXX provides treatment for everybody who has HIV/AIDS it is geographically limited.  In the case before the panel at the time when the claimant traveled to the USA for treatment, this  was not available to him in Mexico.  Should he return to Mexico availability of treatment is not an issue.   INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)  In his decision, one of the issues addre ssed by Mr. Justice XXXXXXX was whether the Board erred in its analysis of a viable IFA c onsidering the claimant’s HIV positive status.  IFA arises when a claimant may have a well-founded f ear of persecution in the home area of his or  
                                                           
22  Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. XXXXXXXXXXX (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.).  
23  XXXXX, Sandor v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6248-99), Blais, October 3, 2000. 
24  XXXXXXX, Gloria Del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D. no. IMM-5451-01), Heneghan, September 20, 2002.  
25  Canada (Attorney General) v. XXXX , [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689. 
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
9 her country, but can safely relocate to another part of the country.  The test to be applied in determining whether there is an IFA is two-prong ed:  (i) there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted or subjected, on a balance of probabilities, to a danger of torture or to a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA area, and (ii) conditions in the IFA area must be such th at it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the claimant to seek refuge there.
26  The second prong of the IFA test may be stated as follows:  Would it be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another less hostile part of the country before seeking refugee protection abroad?
27   I have considered whether a viable IFA would exist for the claimant either in Mexico City, as the issue was raised with him at the hear ing.  It is not enough for the claimant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.
28  The fact that a claimant might be better off in Canada physically, economically and emotiona lly than in a safe place in his own country, as this claimant testified he would be, is not a factor to consider in assessing the reasonableness of the IFA.
29  I am of the view that the claimant had an obligation to at least try to find a safe haven in his own country before abandoning it altogether and unless it were patently unreasonable for him to do so, his failure to at least try will be fatal to his claims. The claimant stated that he cannot be safe anywhere in Mexico including Mexico City and therefore he decided not to go anywhere due  to the insecurity of law enforcement with regard to his case.  He has been beaten by the police once before.   Counsel states that it would be unreasonable fo r the claimant to re-locate elsewhere in Mexico because of his psychological vulnerability.  He submits that evidence indicates that he has absolutely no meaningful family support.  His family, with the exception one sister, ostracized him.  His siblings have threatened and assaulted him.  It has to be noted he has no family here in Canada either.    Regarding the second prong of the IFA test , whether it would be unduly harsh for the claimant to seek refuge in a less hostile part of the country before moving abroad, I find that the test is also met.  In this case, the claimant has shown that he is able to move to a new country and 
                                                           
26  XXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration ), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.). 
27  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1994], 1.F.C. 589 (C.A.).  
28  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1994], 1.F.C. 589(C.A.) pp. 596-599. 
29  XXXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.).  
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
10 begin to adjust to life here in Canada and to learn a new culture and language.  I find that it would be that much easier for him to readjust to  life in a different locale in his home country. I find, based on the evidence before me that the claimant could live safely without fear of persecution or a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Mexico City.  Having considered the conditions in this city and all the circumstances of this claim, including those particular to the claimant, I find that it is not objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek refuge in Mexico City. On the evidence before me, I find the discrimi natory treatment for those afflicted with HIV is prevalent in Mexico.  The claimant had lived in 
XXXXX  for most part of his growing years and later moved to 
XXXXX .  It is at this place where he had faced discrimination in the employment sector.  The panel suggest ed Mexico City as a viable IFA. I have reviewed documentary evidence
30 which states: While homosexuals experienced a growing social acceptance, the National Center to Prevent and Control HIV/AIDS stat ed that discrimination persisted. ...  The law prohibits several types of disc rimination, including bias based on sexuality, and requires federal agencies to promote tolerance.   On September 24, the SCJN ruled on the fifth case of eight soldiers who alleged discrimination by their superiors because they were summarily discharged after being tested HIV-positive. The SCJ ordere d SEDENA to reinstate the soldiers in their former positions.  The claimant has more than basic educa tion and has worked as a manager in a 
XXXXX .  In addition, with the skills acquired at this 
XXXXX  he also operated his own business.  In fact he has attended university from 1989 to 1986 in addition to high school certificate.  In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that all HIV pos itive persons are unable to open their business the panel concurs with the documentary evidence
31 which states: Colectivo Sol's XXXXXXXXXXXX and CENSIDA's XXXXXXXXXXXXXX also provided information on the possibilities for homose xuals to relocate to avoid harassment or violence more generally (Colectivo Sol 1 Dec. 2006; CENSIDA 8 Dec 2006). According to XXXXXXXXXXXX, university-e ducated homosexuals tend to have the most options available to them, includi ng the possibility of moving to another region or city to avoid intolerance (Colectivo Sol 1 Dec. 2006). In contrast, XXXXXXXXXXXX suggested that transgendere d individuals living outside the DF are the group most likely to experience threats or violence (ibid.). ...  
                                                           
30  Exhibit R-1, tab 2.1, United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Right Practices for 2007, March 11, 2008, section 5, “Other Societal Abuses and Discrimination.” 
31  Exhibit R-1, tab 2.4, sectio n 5.3,“Traceability of individual s fleeing violent situations”. 
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR :  TA5-06607  
11 The claimant has neither a high profile in th e community nor does he have a profile as a gay activist to attract the attention of the perpetrators.  Should he relocate to Mexico City the likelihood of him been tracked down is ne gligent. Documentary evidence states: Neither government nor NGO representati ves consulted were aware of any incidents in which homosexuals had been  tracked down by aggressors who used government databases to locate them (Colectivo Sol 1 Dec. 2006; CONAPRED 23 Nov. 2006; CENSIDA 8 Dec. 2006). However, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX claimed that publicly known homosexuals would likely face a higher risk of detection were they to relocate to another region beca use of their higher public profile (ibid.).  The claimant has not discharged his responsibil ity of showing that the risk of harm he fears would be faced in every part of Me xico pursuant to section 97(1)(b) of the IRPA. CONCLUSION The panel determines the claimant not to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.  His claim is therefore denied. 
   (signed)“V. XXXXXX”  XXXXXXXXX 
  May 6, 2009  Date 
 REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION - CON VENTION REFUGEE - PERSECUTION - SEXUAL ORIENTATION - HIV - STATE PROTECTION - INTE RNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE - DISCRIMINATION - MALE - NEGATIVE – MEXICO  
2009 CanLII 68433 (CA IRB)

