TA4-19556

TA4-19556

The claims were rejected because the panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the state of Mexico has effective institutions and provides remedies and protection for women such that the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection and failed to show that internal relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable; credibility concerns and lack of corroboration reinforced the conclusion that the claimant did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm warranting refugee protection.

Citation
TA4-19556
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s.96 and S.97) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Nexus to a Convention Ground
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Family Law Human Rights Domestic Violence State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s.96 and S.97) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant
  2. 2 Adequacy of state protection in Mexico
  3. 3 Availability and reasonableness of an internal flight alternative (IFA)

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the state of Mexico has effective institutions and provides remedies and protection for women such that the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection and failed to show that internal relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable; credibility concerns and lack of corroboration reinforced the conclusion that the claimant did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm warranting refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of the claimant and her two minor daughters are denied