TA6-05809

TA6-05809

The panel found that adequate state protection and remedies exist in the Federal District (Mexico City) and that relocation there is not unduly harsh; the claimants therefore failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that they are persons in need of protection, and their refugee claims are rejected.

Citation
TA6-05809
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Final Merits Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Child Custody Dispute
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Gender Based Violence Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Family Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Domestic Violence +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Final Merits Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Mexico City exists
  3. 3 Whether the Mexican state provides adequate protection in the D.F.

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that adequate state protection and remedies exist in the Federal District (Mexico City) and that relocation there is not unduly harsh; the claimants therefore failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that they are persons in need of protection, and their refugee claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • The Refugee Protection Division determines XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection; their claims are rejected.