TA7-10491

TA7-10491

On the balance of probabilities an adequate and reasonable Internal Flight Alternative exists in Mexico's Federal District where state protection is available; the claimants failed to prove continued existence or national reach of the named gang or a nexus giving rise to persecution; consequently they lack a well‑founded fear and are not persons in need of protection, so the claims are rejected.

Citation
TA7-10491
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97(1)) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Well Founded Fear, Risk of Torture, Gang Violence, Corruption
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Well Founded Fear Risk of Torture +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97(1)) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists in the Federal District
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available in the Federal District

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities an adequate and reasonable Internal Flight Alternative exists in Mexico's Federal District where state protection is available; the claimants failed to prove continued existence or national reach of the named gang or a nexus giving rise to persecution; consequently they lack a well‑founded fear and are not persons in need of protection, so the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division