2023 FC, 2023 FC 1599

Date: 20231129 Docket: IMM-5822-22 Citation: 2023 FC 1599 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION REVISED BY THE AUTHOR] Montréal, Quebec, November 29, 2023 PRESENT: Mr.

Justice Sébastien Grammond BETWEEN:DIEGO ALEJANDRO VEGA GODINEZALEXIA SOFIA VEGA GODINEZApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 29, 2023) [1] The applicants are seeking judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and RefugeeBoard dismissing their claim for refugee protection. [2] The applicants are minor children and citizens of Mexico. Their father is a police officer in Mexico.

The father states that he receivedthreats after arresting a person who was allegedly a cartel member. Moreover, the female applicant was allegedly the subject of anattempted kidnapping, during which the perpetrator uttered threats against the father. The applicants’ father and mother then arranged tohave them come to Canada, where the mother was already residing.

The applicants then claimed refugee protection. [3] To show that the RAD’s decision was unreasonable, the applicants first submit that it should have recognized that they fearpersecution by reason of their membership in a "“particular social group”" within the meaning of the definition of a refugee, since theyare the children of Mexican police officers.

However, the RAD applied the analytical framework developed by the Supreme Court ofCanada in Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689, to determine whether a group is a"“particular social group.”" It analyzed the information in the national documentation package and found no evidence to support thefinding that the children of Mexican police officers constituted such a group. In my opinion, this finding was reasonable and is similar tothis Court’s finding in Ashgar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 768.

By cross-referencing various pieces ofevidence, the applicants argue for a contrary finding. However, it is not for the Court to substitute its assessment of the evidence for thatof the RAD if the latter is reasonable. [4] The applicants also state that the RAD should have recognized that they are part of the "“family social group.”" However, to reachthis finding, a member of their family must be the victim of persecution for one of the grounds stated in the definition of refugee: Zreiki vCanada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 932.

In this case, the RAD found that the applicants’ father had been threatenedbecause of his work as a police officer and not because of an imputed political opinion. This is a reasonable factual finding. [5] Lastly, the applicants allege that the RAD should have been less demanding regarding the evidence needed to show that they riskbeing sought and attacked by the cartel, because the tense relationship between their mother and father would explain why the father’sstatement is lacking in detail.

In my opinion, however, the RAD reasonably found that the father could have provided more detailedevidence. [6] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is as follows: 1. The application for judicial review is dismissed. 2. No question is certified. “Sébastien Grammond” Judge FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DoCKET: IMM-5822-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: DIEGO ALEJANDRO VEGA GODINEZ, ALEXIA SOFIA VEGA GODINEZ v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, QuEbec DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 29, 2023 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: GRAMMOND J. DATED: NOVEMBER 29, 2023 APPEARANCES : Emmanuel Roy-Allain FOR THE APPLICANTS Meriem Barhoumi FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : SR Avocats Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANTS Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT