TA9-09536

TA9-09536

On the balance of probabilities the Panel found a viable internal flight alternative in Guadalajara and that the claimant did not discharge the burden to show it was unavailable; alternatively the risk faced was generalized and thus excluded under s.97(1)(b) IRPA, so the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-09536
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Generalized Risk, Exclusion, Nexus, Persecution, Gang Violence, Drug Trafficking, Identity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Generalized Risk Exclusion Nexus +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Availability of an Internal Flight Alternative in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether the claimants meet the definition of Convention refugee (s.96 IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection (s.97(1) IRPA)

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Panel found a viable internal flight alternative in Guadalajara and that the claimant did not discharge the burden to show it was unavailable; alternatively the risk faced was generalized and thus excluded under s.97(1)(b) IRPA, so the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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