TA4-16515

TA4-16515

The panel found the claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection because a reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico City, the claimant failed to pursue available state protection there, and her credibility was undermined by significant omissions and late additions to her PIF, so the presumption of state protection was not rebutted.

Citation
TA4-16515
Parties
Claimant (mother): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Domestic Violence, Credibility, Corruption and Drug Trafficking
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution State Protection Domestic Violence Credibility +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (mother)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under sections 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA) existed in Mexico City

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection because a reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico City, the claimant failed to pursue available state protection there, and her credibility was undermined by significant omissions and late additions to her PIF, so the presumption of state protection was not rebutted.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division determination dated September 27, 2005: claims denied