CAT/C/38/D/298/2006
page 4
2.5 On 16 October 2002, the complainants left Mexico by air for Canada. They were admitted
as visitors for a period of six months. On 12 November 2002, they appeared before Citizenship
and Immigration Canada in Montreal and claimed refugee status. On 11 March 2004, the
Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board concluded that they were not refugees under the
Convention, or persons requiring protection. The Board noted several inconsistencies in
C.A.R.M.’s testimony, concerning in particular the question of whether or not the mayor had
been present during the meeting on 22 August 2002 and the content of telephone conversations
C.A.R.M. claimed to have had with the accountant on 11 October 2002. Moreover, the Board
had not been satisfied with C.A.R.M.’s explanation as to why he had not mentioned to the
immigration officer at his first interview that he and his family had been threatened by
Gulf Cartel drug traffickers. At his interview with an immigration officer on 12 November 2002,
C.A.R.M. stated that he was being persecuted by the mayor. In his Personal Information Form
and in his testimony to the Board, he stated that he was afraid of members of the Gulf Cartel who
had ties to prisoners protected by the mayor. During the asylum procedure, C.A.R.M. explained
that he had been afraid for the accountant and that he feared deportation if the officer thought
him a criminal because he did not know the country’s laws.
2.6 On 6 April 2004, the complainants applied for leave and for judicial review of the Board’s
negative decision. On 23 June 2004, the application for leave to appeal was rejected by the
Federal Court of Canada.
2.7 On 1 September 2005, the complainants were offered a pre-removal risk assessment
(PRRA). A PRRA application was submitted by the complainants on 16 September 2005. The
following supplementary information and documents were submitted to the Canadian authorities
in the course of this procedure.
2.8 The complainants lodged a complaint with the Mexican police, which was submitted
on 17 February 2005 by C.A.R.M.’s half-brother, who was kidnapped and had his van stolen in
the month of February. In the course of this episode, one of his assailants asked him where the
complainants were. According to his half-brother, the assailants were police officers, but his
lawyer had allegedly advised him not to include that information in his police statement. The
complainants also mention a letter dated 16 September 2005, sent by their family firm, stating
that “someone” was trying to obtain further information about them. The letter advised the
complainants not to return to Mexico. The complainants also submitted an article dated
19 May 2004 from the Internet, which stated that a person named Rafael Cielo Ramírez, the
director of San Pedro Cholula prison, had disappeared after a warrant for his arrest had been
issued for assault and threats against the deputy mayor of San Rafael.
2.9 The complainants submitted a new report on their psychological state. They had undergone
two psychological evaluations, one in November 2003, during the Immigration and Refugee
Board procedure, and the other in September 2005, conducted by the same psychologist, who
had concluded that they were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and that that
condition had been triggered by their vulnerable status and their fear of being sent back to their
own country. L.G.U. suffered from a deep depression, accompanied by suicidal thoughts. The
complainants claimed that the whole family, and particularly L.G.U., was in a fragile
psychological state and required attention and an appropriate environment to avoid irreparable
damage.