Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-596-98
Evans J.
6/10/98
15 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD decision dismissing claim for refugee status on ground had internal flight alternative in Mexico outside Mexico City-Allegation finding made without regard to material before it-Applicant alleged persecution stemming from refusal to pay extortion to corrupt officials and his becoming member of taxi drivers' union formed to resist such demands-Psychologist testified applicant suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder-Application allowed-Not established Board clearly erred when found on balance of probabilities applicant faced no serious possibility of persecution outside Mexico City-Nonetheless, in light of psychological evidence before it, CRDD erred in finding would not be unduly harsh for applicant to relocate in Mexico outside Mexico City-Fact CRDD found that, in other respects, would not be unreasonable to expect applicant to return (such as employment prospects of applicant and his wife) not mitigating effect psychologist predicts return to Mexico likely to have on his psychological condition-Indeed, symptoms such as depression, nightmares likely to make it much more difficult for him to undertake search for new employment with necessary energy-Evidence so important to applicant's case that can be inferred from CRDD's failure to mention it in its reasons that finding of fact made without regard to it-"Boilerplate" assertion CRDD considered all evidence before it not sufficient to prevent this inference from being drawn-Conclusion supported by Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 30 Imm. L.R. (2d) 226 (F.C.T.D.) where failure of CRDD to mention relevant and credible psychological report respecting reasonableness of requiring refugee claimant to return to country of origin held to be error of law.