Martinez v. Canada (Minister of citizenship and immigration)
Court headnote
Martinez v. Canada (Minister of citizenship and immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-08-28 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1005 File numbers IMM-6020-02 Decision Content Date: 20030828 Docket: IMM-6020-02 Citation: 2003 FC 1005 Between: CLAUDIA VERONICA ALONSO MARTINEZ Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER PINARD J.: [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "IRB") dated November 4, 2002, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "Act"), or a "person in need of protection" under section 97 of the Act. [2] The applicant is a citizen of Mexico. She claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in her country because of her membership in a particular social group, i.e., because she is a lesbian. [3] The IRB determined as follows: The panel determines that Claudia Veronica Alonso Martinez is not a person in need of protection since she has an internal flight alternative in Mexico. [4] Although the IRB found the applicant credible, it gave the following reasons in support of its decision: - given that the applicant did not claim refugee protection during her trip to Europe, she did not have the least fear of persecution in Mexico. From October 2000 through January 19, 2002, the applicant did not have any…
Read full judgment
Martinez v. Canada (Minister of citizenship and immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-08-28 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1005 File numbers IMM-6020-02 Decision Content Date: 20030828 Docket: IMM-6020-02 Citation: 2003 FC 1005 Between: CLAUDIA VERONICA ALONSO MARTINEZ Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER PINARD J.: [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "IRB") dated November 4, 2002, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "Act"), or a "person in need of protection" under section 97 of the Act. [2] The applicant is a citizen of Mexico. She claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in her country because of her membership in a particular social group, i.e., because she is a lesbian. [3] The IRB determined as follows: The panel determines that Claudia Veronica Alonso Martinez is not a person in need of protection since she has an internal flight alternative in Mexico. [4] Although the IRB found the applicant credible, it gave the following reasons in support of its decision: - given that the applicant did not claim refugee protection during her trip to Europe, she did not have the least fear of persecution in Mexico. From October 2000 through January 19, 2002, the applicant did not have any problems resulting from her homosexuality; - the documents regarding the general status of homosexuals in Mexico establish that there are good relations between lesbians and heterosexuals in the Federal District, i.e. Mexico City; - the applicant based her claim for refugee protection on the fact that she is lesbian and that in the Federal District of Mexico she fears persecution because of the high crime rate and not because of her sexual orientation; - thus, the Federal District is an internal flight alternative where the applicant can live without fear of persecution on account of her homosexuality. [5] The findings of the panel, based on both documentary evidence and the applicant's own testimony, seem to me to satisfy the relevant law in matters involving internal flight, as clarified by the Federal Court of Appeal in Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] 1 F.C. 589, at page 597: Thus, the IFA must be sought, if it is not unreasonable to do so, in the circumstances of the individual claimant. This test is a flexible one, that takes into account the particular situation of the claimant and the particular country involved. This is an objective test and the onus of proof rests on the claimant on this issue, just as it does with all other aspects of a refugee claim. Consequently, if there is a safe haven for claimants in their own country, where they would be free of persecution, they are expected to avail themselves of it unless they can show that it is objectively unreasonable for them to do so. [6] I need only point out that the IRB has offered ample documentary evidence to prove the existence of initiatives and support organizations for homosexuals experiencing problems in the Federal District. The objective documentary evidence also demonstrates that other remedies are available from various government departments for situations involving discrimination. Finally, it appears that the applicant is more fearful of crime in the Federal District of Mexico than she is of being persecuted because of her sexual orientation. [7] For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. "Yvon Pinard" JUDGE OTTAWA, ONTARIO August 28, 2003 Certified true translation Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6020-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: CLAUDIA VERONICA ALONSO MARTINEZ v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: July 9, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard DATED: August 28, 2003 APPEARANCES: Manuel Centurion FOR THE APPLICANT Suzon Létourneau FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Manuel Centurion FOR THE APPLICANT Montréal, Quebec Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca