TA5-10196

TA5-10196

Applying the two‑pronged IFA test, the panel found on the balance of probabilities that Mexico City is a viable internal flight alternative where there is no serious possibility of persecution by the local criminal and relocation there would not be unduly harsh; therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA5-10196
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Adjudicator: William T. Short; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel; Refugee Protection Officer: n/a
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Convention Refugee, Protection Under S.97(1) IRPA, Sexual Violence, Particular Social Group
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution Convention Refugee Protection Under S.97(1) IRPA Sexual Violence +1 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

William T. Short

Adjudicator

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

n/a

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee based on gender-based violence and membership of a particular social group
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (Mexico City) is available and reasonable such that claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the two‑pronged IFA test, the panel found on the balance of probabilities that Mexico City is a viable internal flight alternative where there is no serious possibility of persecution by the local criminal and relocation there would not be unduly harsh; therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA