Plata v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Plata v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2005-12-19
Neutral citation
2005 FC 1718
File numbers
IMM-966-05
Decision Content
Date: 20051219
Docket: IMM-966-05
Citation: 2005 FC 1718
Ottawa, Ontario, December 19, 2005
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
RAUL JIMENEZ PLATA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ANDJUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Raul Jimenez Plata sought refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of mistreatment in Mexico due to his sexual orientation. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed his claim. The Board found that he could obtain state protection in Mexico and could live safely in certain parts of the country.
[2] Mr. Jimenez Plata argues that the Board erred in its analysis and asks for a new hearing. I can find no basis for overturning the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
Did the Board err in its finding that state protection was available in Mexico?
Did the Board err in its finding that Mr. Jimenez Plata could live safely in certain parts of Mexico? [3] I can overturn the Board's decision only if I find that its conclusions were unreasonable.
II. Analysis
Did the Board err in its finding that state protection was available in Mexico?
[4] Mr. Jimenez Plata explained to the Board why he was afraid of persecution in Mexico. He described occasions when he was assaulted and threatened with death. The Board appears to have accepted his evidence about those incidents.
[5] Mr. Jimenez Plata also told the Board that he could not obtain the protection of state authorities in Mexico. He described an incident in which he and his partner were attacked by unknown persons. Police officers who happened to be driving by took them to a pharmacy to receive medical attention. When Mr. Jimenez Plata told them what had happened, the officers laughed and mocked him. They said they would come back to get them, but they never returned.
[6] Mr. Jimenez Plata maintains that this incident represented an effort to obtain state protection, which the authorities refused him.
[7] Mr. Jimenez Plata also explained that he was afraid of a person who was known as "The Devil". This person was a police officer. Therefore, Mr. Jimenez said he was reluctant to call the police to protect him. He thought it would make things worse.
[8] The Board considered Mr. Jimenez Plata's circumstances and concluded that he had not discharged the onus on him to show clear and convincing evidence of a lack of state protection. It found that Mr. Jimenez Plata had not made a serious attempt to obtain state protection. Further, the Board reviewed documentary evidence that showed that progress has been made in advancing the rights of homosexuals in Mexico. The situation is far from ideal but the Board was satisfied, on balance, that adequate state protection exists in Mexico. Further, if a person has a complaint against a public servant, including a police officer, he or she can raise the matter with the Federal Attorney General's office.
[9] I cannot conclude that the Board's analysis was unreasonable, in light of the evidence before it.
B. Did the Board err in its finding that Mr. Jimenez Plata could live safely in certain parts of Mexico?
[10] The Board found that it was possible that Mr. Jimenez Plata would be the victim of discrimination if he returned to Mexico. However, it also concluded that the persons Mr. Jimenez Plata feared would probably not seek him out at this point. Further, the Board found that certain parts of Mexico, such as Mexico City and Puerto Vallarta, are more tolerant of homosexuals and Mr. Jimenez Plata could probably live safely there.
[11] While the Board did not rely on it expressly, its finding was supported by documentary evidence. Accordingly, I cannot find that its conclusion was unreasonable.
[12] Therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
The application for judicial review is dismissed; No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL ANDSOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-966-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: RAUL JIMENEZ PLATA v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ON.
DATE OF HEARING: December 14, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: O'Reilly J.
DATED: December 19, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Ryan Persad FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms.Claire le Riche FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Ryan Persad FOR THE APPLICANT Toronto, ON
tOTTT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Toronto, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT