TA7-12266

TA7-12266

The claim was rejected because on the balance of probabilities the panel found a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative in Guadalajara where effective state protection and institutional remedies make persecution unlikely, so the claimant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground and is not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA7-12266
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Convention Refugee Determination, Political Opinion Nexus, Risk of Torture and Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Convention Refugee Determination Political Opinion Nexus Risk of Torture and Cruel and Unusual Treatment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a nexus to a Convention ground (perceived political opinion)
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Guadalajara) exists

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because on the balance of probabilities the panel found a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative in Guadalajara where effective state protection and institutional remedies make persecution unlikely, so the claimant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground and is not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's refugee protection claim