CAT/C/39/D/304/2006
Page 3
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1 On 11 September 2002, the complainant’s companion was reportedly tortured and
killed in Chilpancingo, Mexico, allegedly by the police, while working as a truck driver. The
reasons for the killing are not clear to the complainant, but she claims that her partner had
access to compromising information about his employer, B., who belonged to a powerful clan
and was running in the local elections.
2.2 The complainant states that her companion’s killers believe she has in her possession an
envelope containing compromising information. She claims to have received anonymous
death threats and was obliged to move to Mexico city with her daughter. She says that, in
Mexico city, on 12 August 2003, she was accosted by three individuals claiming to be
government officials, who insulted her, demanded the envelope and threatened to kill her
daughter. She decided to leave the country and the complainants arrived in Canada on 26
November 2003 and applied for asylum there on 22 December 2003.
2.3 On 26 October 2004, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board rejected their application. According to the complainant, this decision was wrong and
unfair because the Refugee Protection Division was partial in its consideration of the
evidence. The complainants sought leave to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of
the Refugee Protection Division decision; their request was turned down on 10 May 2005. On
15 June 2006, they applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), but their application
was denied on 14 August 2004. Meanwhile, on 2 February 2006, they had asked the Canada
Border Services Agency (CBSA) to review their situation on humanitarian grounds, at the
same time applying for a stay of removal. A stay having been denied on 5 October 2006, the
complainants were told they would be sent back to Mexico. Their application for review on
humanitarian grounds was rejected by CBSA on 6 December 2006.
2.4 The complainants believe themselves to be the victims of a number of errors on the part
of members of the Board (judges), immigration officials, and even their own lawyers, who,
they say, did not examine their application properly. Specifically, the tribunal (i.e., the
Refugee Protection Division) found inconsistencies with regard to the place of death of the
complainant’s partner, but the complainant maintains that these were the result of a mistake
in translation.1 In her view this was a significant error, because the original of the death
certificate gave Chilpancingo as the place of death. The translator referred to Chimalhuacan,
but as the place where her partner’s body was sent. The judge had nevertheless decided that
the place name provided by the complainant was wrong, which shows, in the complainant’s
view, that this piece of evidence was evaluated in a manifestly arbitrary fashion. She
maintains that the Refugee Protection Division should have verified not only the authenticity
of the document but also the translation.
1
The complainants state that they submitted another death certificate with their request for
PRRA.