TA8-07923

TA8-07923

Based on objective country documentary evidence of legal reforms, victim services and the availability of protection in Guadalajara and applying the two-pronged IFA test and the claimant's burden of proof, the Board concluded Guadalajara is a viable IFA and it would not be unreasonable for the claimants to relocate there; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA8-07923
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Domestic Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Gender Based Violence Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Domestic Violence

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Guadalajara

Ratio Decidendi

Based on objective country documentary evidence of legal reforms, victim services and the availability of protection in Guadalajara and applying the two-pronged IFA test and the claimant's burden of proof, the Board concluded Guadalajara is a viable IFA and it would not be unreasonable for the claimants to relocate there; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed; no protection granted