 
 Immigration and Refugee Board  
 Refugee Protection Division  
Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié
Section de la protection des réfugiés
 RPD File No. / N
o de dossier de la SPR : MA7-01872 MA7-01873  Private Proceeding Huis clos   Claimant(s)  Demandeur(e)s d’asile
XXXXX XXXXX  XXXXX  XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
 XXXXX  XXXXX 
Date(s) of Hearing   Date(s) de l’audience
July 30, 2007 
Place of Hearing   Lieu de l’audience
Montréal, Quebec 
Date of Decision   Date de la décision
July 30, 2007 Reasons signed: August 8, 2007 
Panel   Tribunal
Girard Landry 
Claimant’s Counsel   Conseil du demandeur d’asile
Me XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
Refugee Protection Officer   Agent de la protection des réfugiés
Filing of documents 
Designated Representative   Représentant désigné
N/A 
Minister’s Counsel   Conseil du ministre
N/A 
2007 CanLII 71066 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA7-01872 MA7-01873  1    
 ORAL REASONS  XXXXX XXXXX
 XXXXX  XXXXX, the principal claimant, 24, and her brother, XXXXX  
XXXXX  XXXXX  XXXXX, 21, made a claim for refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). A
LLEGED FACTS  The panel notes that only the principal claima nt filed an answer to question 31 on the Personal Information Form (PIF). Her brother, XXXXXXXXXXX, based his claim on that of his sister. The events alleged by the claimants occurred during a very short period of time, between XXXXX and XXXXX, 2007, the date on which the claimants left their country. The claimants stated that, because they witnessed a killing, they were targeted by an unknown individual nicknamed “XXXXX,” who is a XXXXX
 XXXXX, and some of his confederates. The persecution they suffered allegedly took the form of harassment  and threats, including death threats. Moreover, the claimants alleged that they narrow ly escaped an accident caused by “XXXXX.” Finally, they stated that they made the decision to leave their country on XXXXX, 2007, and that their sister XXXXX bought them airplane tickets to Canada. D
ETERMINATION  Analysis of the full testimony and documentary ev idence leads the panel to conclude that the claimants have not discharged their burden of proof and, therefore, are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, for the following reasons. A
NALYSIS  Identity  The identities of the claimants were established to the panel’s satisfaction by means of, among other things, photocopies of their Mexican passports. Persecution—Section 96 of the IRPA  First of all, the panel considers the claimants to be victims of criminality, not persecution. In this regard, it should be recalled that, according to XXXXXXXXX,
1 victims of criminality do not belong 
2007 CanLII 71066 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA7-01872 MA7-01873  2    
 to a particular social group. The panel will ther efore consider the claims under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA. State protection Taking the claimants’ testimony was a laborious  process. Questions had to be repeated several times in order to obtain a response. Th e panel reminded the claimants that it is well- established in the jurisprudence that a refugee pr otection claimant has a duty to seek the protection of his or her country before seeking international protection—in this case, Canada’s protection. Except where a complete breakdown of  the state apparatus has occurred, there is a presumption that a state is capable of protecting its citizens. This presumption may be overturned only by “clear and convincing” evidence of the inability of the state to provide protection. The Federal Court has also indicated that a refugee protection claimant must go beyond simply showing that he or she approached so me police officers and that those efforts were unproductive. In this regard, XXXXXXX
2 states: “The more democratic the state’s institutions, the more the claimant must have done to exha ust all the courses of action open to him.” In response to specific questions from the pane l, the claimants clearly testified, on several occasions, that they did not request the assistance of the police in any way; nor did they seek the help of the C.N.D.H. or even attempt to consult ot her offices. They stated that they consulted their friends’ lawyer and that he advised them to go to Canada because the police would do nothing. They added that they felt that if they complained to the police, they would have more problems; that unfortunately, in Mexico, efforts are being made but  they are not enough; and finally that they did nothing because of “XXXXX.” The panel cannot accept this as a sufficient an swer. While Mexico has some problems with corruption, it cannot be described as a county where a complete breakdown of the state apparatus has occurred. There are places
3 where a person can go and file a complaint, and places where one can obtain help in reporting a conflict,  as the documentary evidence shows.
4 This document describes various federal law enforcement agencies , such as the federal judicial police and other bodies that offer recourse at the state level, including the Federal District. If an individual is not satisfied with the authorities’ responses, there ar e internal controls, as this documentation shows;
5 
2007 CanLII 71066 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA7-01872 MA7-01873  3    
 therefore, while police corruption is a problem in Mexico, it can be seen from the documentation that the authorities have made serious efforts to curb it, as the above-mentioned documents show. It was incumbent upon the claimants to ove rturn the presumption that the Mexican authorities were able to protect them. While the situation in Mexico is not perfect, the panel cannot find that there is clear and convincing evidence th at the Mexican state would not attempt to protect the claimants if they returned to their country—par ticularly since, in their case, the claimants not only did not exhaust all the avenues available to them for obtaining assistance and protection, but made no effort to do so. Internal flight alternative (IFA) The panel considers that an IFA exists. According to the jurisprudence,
6 the analysis of whether there is an IFA is two-pronged. First, the panel must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimants being persecuted in another part of the country. Second, conditions in the IFA must be su ch that it would not be unreasonable, in all of the circumstances, for the claimants to seek refuge there. The incidents alleged by the claimants occurred in their neighbourhood—
 XXXXX. They were allegedly committed by “XXXXX” and some of his confederates, whom they do not know, according to their oral and written testimony. According to the documentary evidence file d by the refugee protection officer (RPO), Mexico has a population of more than 120 million acros s its vast territory. That evidence shows that Mexico is a federal state with 31 states, in add ition to the Federal District of Mexico City. In addition, there are many cities with a population of more than one million, such as Guadalajara, Puebla, Guanajuato and Veracruz, the small to wn of Orizaba, and even the Mexico City metropolitan area, which has a population almost as la rge as that of Canada. When questioned about an internal flight alternative in one of these cities, such as XXXXX or XXXXX, where they have relatives, the claimants replied, without being able to explain how they decided not to go there. In addition, Ms. XXXXX
 XXXXX indicated that their sister told them to come to Canada and flee Mexico. Ms. XXXXX XXXXX did not demonstrate that an internal flight alternative was unreasonable in their case. The claimants are young, resourceful and highly educated. The principal 
2007 CanLII 71066 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA7-01872 MA7-01873  4    
 claimant is gainfully employed. The panel consider s that the claimants have an internal flight alternative in one of Mexico’s major cities, including the Mexico City metropolitan area. The panel is of the opinion that the agents of persecution, “ XXXXX” and his confederates, are not present in all parts of the country and are not looking for the claimants, and that there is no serious possibility of the claimants being persecuted in Veracruz or another major city in Mexico, or even in the Mexico City metropolitan area. The clai mants applied for and obtained their passports in Mexico City with no problem, demonstratin g that the police and/or the friends of “ XXXXX” are not interested in them. The claimants did not demonstrate that an inte rnal flight alternative was unreasonable in their case. C
ONCLUSION   The panel determines that the claimants are not  Convention refugees or persons in need of protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.  Their claim for refugee protection is rejected.  XXXXXXXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 Au gust 8 , 2007  Date 
 
                                                           
1  XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., No. IMM-7368-93), Jerome, March 10, 1995. 
2  XXXXXXX v. M.E.I. [1996], F.C.A., No. A-385-95, Hugesson, Décary, Chevalier, October 15, 1996.  
3  A-1: National Documentation Package on Mexico, March 15, 2006, section 4: Political Activities and Organizations, tab 4.2: MEX43180.EF. November 18, 2004. 
4  Idem, section 9: Judiciary, Legal and Penal System s. tab 9.1: MEX43164.EF. November 18, 2004.  
5  Idem, section 10: Police and Security Forces, tab 10. 1: Canada. May 2004. Immigration and Refugee Board. Mexico: Police. 
6  XXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (M.E.I.) [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.).  XXXXXXXXXXX v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Meloche, December 21, 2000.     
 
2007 CanLII 71066 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA7-01872 MA7-01873  5    
                                                           
 
 REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION  /  BENCH REASONS  /  VICTIMS OF CONFLICT  /  DRUG TRAFFICKING  /  HARASSMENT  /  STATE PROTECTION  /  INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE  /  FEMALE  /  MALE  /  NEGATIVE  /  MEXICO  
2007 CanLII 71066 (CA IRB)

