Munoz v MCI 2010 FC 238

The Court set aside a finding of generalized risk noting: 29 The tribunal relied on the Vickram and ProphËte cases in support of its finding the risk the applicants were facing was "generally faced by other individuals in Mexico". 30 The Vickram case involved an Indo-Guyanese claimant whose refugee claim was refused. He had testified he believed he had been targeted because of his wealth. The tribunal held the acts of violence he suffered were "random criminal acts faced generally by civilians." 31 In Vickram, my colleague Justice de Montigny pointed to Mr. Vickram's testimony he was a well-established business man with a big home and was making lots of money. Justice de Montigny held the tribunal correctly instructed itself on the law "which says the risk faced must not be indis-criminate or random and one faced generally by the entire population. The panel concluded the risk Mr. Vickam faced was of criminal activity, and that the risk was no greater than that faced by the population at large." [Emphasis mine.] 32 I agree with counsel for the applicants, the extortion and threats which Mr. Munoz alleges were not random. Mr. Munoz was specifically and personally targeted by Mr. Garcia because of his unique position - the head of sales at a car dealership which is why Garcia and his friends came there. If returned, Mr. Munoz does not fear being subject to random acts of violence by unknown criminal gangs. He fears Mr. Garcia. 33 The tribunal's reliance on Prophete is also misplaced. There is no evidence on the record Mr. Garcia extorted Mr. Munoz because he was wealthy. In fact, the last demand he made was for a free new car. I could find no evidence in which Mr. Munoz testified he was a wealthy man. Being successful does not mean that person is wealthy. 34 Prophete is of no assistance to the respondent. At the Federal Court of Appeal, cited Prophete v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 31, [2009] F.C.J. No. 143, that Court held a section 97(1) claim requires an individualized inquiry to be conducted on the basis of the evidence by a claimant "in the context of a present or prospective risk for him" which sup-ports the applicants' submission of specificity and uniqueness. The applicants' objections are sustained on this point.