 
 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. / No dossier SPR : MB2 -03549  
 
 
Private Proceeding   Huis clos  
 
Claimant(s)   Demandeur(e)s d'asile  
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  
Date(s) of Hearing   Date(s) de l'audience  
April  28, 2014  
Place of Hearing   Lieu de l'audience  
Montréal, Que bec  
Date of decision   Date de la décision  
May 1st, 2014  
Panel   Tribunal  
XXXXXXXXXXXX  
Claimant's Counsel   Consei l XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Blanca Aviles De Mena  
Tribunal Officer   Agent du tribunal  
N/A  
Designated representative   Représentant désigné  
N/A  
Minister's Counsel   Conseil du ministre  
N/A  
2014 CanLII 100927 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No dossier SPR : MB2 -03549  
2 
 
 
 
 [1] The claimant is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . He is a 24 -year old citizen o f El  Salvador. He 
is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee 
Protection Act  (IRPA).  
ALLEGATIONS  
[2] The claimant alleges he had a relationship with the daughter of a powerful politician, XXXX  
XXXX XXXX XXXX .  The girl, XXXX , preferred to keep her relationship with the claimant secret 
because she feared her father’s violent reactions. In XXXX  2011 , XXXX  became pregnant and had a 
secret abortion without the claimant’s knowledge. The claimant was upset by this a nd as a result 
ended the relationship in XXXX  2011.  
[3] The girl did not accept that the relationship was over and began to harass the claimant. In 
XXXX  2012 her father called the claimant and accused the claimant of having forced his daughter to 
have the abo rtion. One hour later he sent three of his body guards who forced their way into his house 
and damaged his parents’ property. The harassment continued and the claimant’s parents sent him to 
stay with relatives and then sent him out of the country.   
[4] The cl aimant left El Salvador on XXXX XXXX , 2012 and flew to New York and then crossed 
the border into Canada where he claimed refugee protection.  
DETERMINATION  
[5] The panel finds that the claimant is  not a “Convention refugee”  under section 96 nor is he a 
“person in need of protection ” under section 97(1) of the IRPA.  
Identity  
[6] The identity of the claimant  was established to the satisfaction of the panel on the basis of his 
El Salvador passport on record.1 
ANALYSIS  
[7] The determinative issue in this case was the credi bility of the claimant’s allegations that the 
politician, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , would want to kill the claimant today because of the 
claimant’s relationship with his daughter, XXXX . 
                                                           
1  Exhibit A -2: Immigration documents.  
2014 CanLII 100927 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No dossier SPR : MB2 -03549  
3 
 
 
 
 [8] The family photo presented in Exhibit C -72 shows XXXX  at home  with the XXXXXXXXXXX family. 
The claimant testified that his parents still live at the same address .  Yet it would not appear that 
XXXX  has come to the claimant’s parents’ home to ask about the claimant. While the claimant states 
that his father lost his job in an XXXX XXXX  as a result of the politician’s intervention, the claimant 
testified that his father is now working again as a XXXX  of another XXXX . The claimant did not 
state that his parents continue to be harassed by XXXX XXXX XXXX .  
[9] The claimant stated that he wo uld not want to renew his relationship with XXXX  but that he 
has heard from a friend that XXXX  still talks about the claimant and misses him.  He testified that he 
had cl osed his cell -phone number while he was still in El  Salvador after having received cont inuous 
phone calls from XXXX  and that he also closed his Facebook page. He testified that the last time he 
heard from XXXX  was when he received an e -mail from her in March 2013. This was presented as 
Exhibit C -123 and the e -mail states that the claimant wa s lucky that her father did not find him when 
XXXX XXXX XXXX  had gone to XXXX . The claimant stated that he did not know how XXXX  
would have found his e -mail address. He testified that he closed that e -mail address after receiving the 
e-mail from her  in Mar ch 2013  and that he had also previously closed another e -mail address  to avoid 
having correspondence from her . Yet the  e-mails in Exhibit C -124 show  that XXXX  had been 
contacting the claimant all along  in 2012 at the  same g mail address which he allege s he closed in 
March 2013.  Had the claimant wanted to avoid all contact with her as he alleges, the claimant would 
have likely cancelled that g mail account much earlier.   
[10]  When the claimant was asked if he thought that XXXX  would still be interested in h im today, 
he replied that in XXXX  2013 a friend, XXXX , had contacted him via Skype to say that XXXX  still 
missed him and that her life has collapsed since their breakup and that her father still blames the 
claimant. Since the claimant had described the eff orts he had made to cut off all contact with XXXX , 
he was asked how XXXX , who he testified was XXXX  best friend, would  still have been able to 
contact him. The claimant replied that he still had her among his Skype contacts until XXXX  2013.  
                                                           
2  Exhibit C -7: P hotos  
3  Exhibit C -12:  E-mails . 
4  Ibid.  
2014 CanLII 100927 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No dossier SPR : MB2 -03549  
4 
 
 
 
 [11]  While XXXXXXXXXXXXX alluded to the fact that XXXX XXXX XXXX  trip to XXXX  may have 
been with the intention of looking for the claimant, the panel did not find this credible. Had XXXX  
best friend been able to contact  the claimant via XXXX in XXXX  in XXXX  2013 , it would not  have 
been very difficult for the father to do the same by simply contacting XXXX , his daughter’s best 
friend, if he had any serious intention of  searching for and harming the claimant.  The claimant , after 
all, alleges that XXXX XXXX XXXX  is a  very power ful man  and is capable of going to any lengths 
to harm the claimat .   
[12]  The claimant alleges that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  would want to kill him today because of the 
daughter’s abortion and the dishonour the claimant brought to him. The panel does not find it credibl e 
that this man would go to such extremes to harm the claimant. The claimant is no longer in a 
relationship with XXXX . XXXX  has not come to the claimant’s home to ask information about the 
claimant from his parents. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX not threatened the cl XXXXXX’s father further. If 
XXXX  XXXX XXXX  had the intention to harm the claimant and , had he been i n XXXX  in March 
2013 as XXXX  e-mail  would seem to  indicate, and had he the power that the claimant alleges he has, 
he would easily have been able to loca te the claimant in XXXX  via Skype as XXXX  best friend, 
XXXX , was   apparently still able to do in XXXX  2013.    
[13]  The claimant had presented many articles which indicate that the politician, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX , is a man who appears to be immune from prosecution desp ite being involved in a number of 
illegal activities.  The claima nt did not have any pictures of  himself with  XXXX  family since he says 
he was not accepted by the girl’s father. However there were also no pictures presented of XXXX  in 
the company of her f ather to show that her father was in fact the politician,  XXXX XXXX XXXX .  
While XXXX  name is XXXX , this surname would appear to the panel to be a rather common Spanish 
last name.  
[14]   The claimant was asked about why he had chosen to come to Canada instead of claiming 
protection in the United States  where he had travelled prior to coming to Canada . He replied that he 
came to Canada because he had an aunt here. When questioned further about when his aunt had come 
to Canada and why, the claimant replied that X is aunt came to Canada at the end of 2011. The basis of 
her claim was different from that of the claimant’s  however . The claimant testified that her claim  had 
been accepted in  2012 .  
2014 CanLII 100927 (CA IRB)
RPD File No. / No dossier SPR : MB2 -03549  
5 
 
 
 
 [15]  The claimant had claimed refugee protection at the end of June  2012. XXXX ver, he had failed 
to indicate in response to question 4 in his PIF that his aunt had come to Canada just six months 
earlier and that she had claimed refugee protection  also . The instructions clearly instruct the claimant 
to list all relatives who claimed protection. The panel finds that an aunt is a close relative and her 
refugee claim should have been listed. Since the aunt had just come to Canada herself very recently 
and had also claimed refugee protection, the panel finds this to be a n important omissi on.  Since the 
XXXX’s claim had been accepted in 2012, in the very year that the claimant had come to Canada, the 
panel finds  that the claimant’s own departure from El Salvador may have been more related to the 
positive outcome of his aunt’s claim rather t han with any problems with the politician, XXXX XXXX  
XXXX . 
[16]  For the above -mentioned reasons, the panel finds that the claimant does not have a well -
founded fear of persecution and that he is not a “Convention refugee” under paragraph 96 of the 
IRPA. The pan el finds that the claimant is not a “person in need of protection” and that he has not 
established, on a balance of probabilities, that he would suffer a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel and 
unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture if he  were to return to El Salvador today . 
CONCLUSION  
[17]  The panel finds that the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , is not a “Convention 
refugee” nor is he a “person in need of protection”. His claim is rejected.   
 
 XXXXXXXXXXXX  
 XXXXXXXXXXXX  
 May 1st, 2014  
 Date  
/ii 
 
2014 CanLII 100927 (CA IRB)

