AMADO JAVIER AVILA MAGANA Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2021 FC 427

Date: 20210512 Docket: IMM-5337-20 Citation: 2021 FC 427 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, May 12, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Shore BETWEEN:AMADO JAVIER AVILA MAGANAApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dated September 25, 2020, in whichthe RAD confirmed the rejection of the applicant’s claim for refugee protection as he is not a Convention refugee or a person in need ofprotection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, ss 96–97(1) [IRPA]. [2] The applicant is a citizen of Mexico and is claiming refugee protection on the basis of a fear of militants of the InstitutionalRevolutionary Party (PRI) because of his political involvement with a rival party.

The applicant arrived in Canada in November 2018. [3] The Refugee Protection Division rejected the applicant’s refugee protection claim, finding that his political involvement was notcredible. The RAD confirmed the decision with respect to the contention that the applicant had been threatened by PRI activists and forconduct that was inconsistent with the alleged fear, given his five-month delay in leaving the country. [4] This judicial review focuses on the reasonableness of the RAD’s findings with respect to the weighing of the evidence, and the lackthereof.

A "“reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified inrelation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”" (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC65 at para 85). [5] The applicant argues that the RAD erred in its assessment of the evidence as to the delay in leaving the country, which was justifiedby his move to another city, the renewal of his passport and the saving of funds for his departure.

He further argues that the RADerroneously considered the absence of a police report in determining his credibility. [6] First, the RAD gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt as to his political involvement. However, the RAD found that thispresumption did not apply to statements regarding the alleged threats and the reasons for leaving the country. [7] In support of its findings, the RAD noted that there was no indication in the evidence that the applicant had many any attempt toreport the threats made against him.

Although the applicant claimed to have made a complaint to the police, he did not file any evidenceto that effect. Further, there appeared to be a serious inconsistency in the applicant’s failure to report the threats to the political party or tothe electoral commission. [8] The RAD also found contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence to explain his delay in leaving the country, as the applicantpreferred to move with his family to another part of the country.

No details were provided as to what matters he had to attend to, otherthan renewing his passport, and in June 2018, the applicant had a valid passport in his possession, some five months before he left thecountry. [9] Furthermore, while the applicant claimed that the murder of his colleague by PRI activists was related to his decision to leave thecountry, this assertion was not included in his refugee protection claim, and there is no documentary evidence to support his testimony tothat effect. [10] The RAD further stated that the documentary evidence did not indicate that workers and activists of the rival party were beingpersecuted for their political allegiance.

Therefore, the applicant’s profile was not in itself sufficient to establish that his fear was wellfounded. [11] In light of the foregoing, the RAD’s reasons bear the hallmarks of a reasonable decision. The RAD is presumed to have consideredand assessed the entire record.

It is not required to consider a claimant’s specific explanations (Karakaya v Canada (Citizenship andImmigration), 2014 FC 777 at para 18). [12] It should be emphasized that where a claimant makes a statement that has a determinative impact, it should be accompanied bysufficient and probative evidence or, alternatively, a statement of efforts made to obtain it (see Kallab v Canada (Citizenship andImmigration), 2019 FC 706 at paras 156–57, citing Maldonado v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1980] 2 FC 302 at para 5 (CA); IRPA, s 170(h); Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2021-256, s 11; and UNHCR,Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, December 2011, HCR/1P4/ENG/REV. 3, atparas 203–05).

[ 13 ] Finally, the RAD cannot be faulted for failing to consider factors or evidence that were not before it, including some of the reasons for the delay in leaving the country ( Dhillon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 321 at paras 23–24 ). [ 14 ] For the reasons stated, the Court dismisses the application for judicial review. JUDGMENT in IMM-5337-20 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of importance to certify. “Michel M.J.

Shore” Judge Certified true translation Michael Palles, Reviser FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5337-20 STYLE OF CAUSE: AMADO JAVIER AVILA MAGANA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: MATTER HEARD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE AT MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: MAY 10, 2021 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J. DATED: MAY 12, 2021 APPEARANCES : Sophie Touchette For THe applicant Maude Normand (student-at-law) Suzon Létourneau For THe respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Barraza & Associés Montréal, Quebec For THe applicant Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec For THe respondent