TA7-03033

TA7-03033

Because a viable internal flight alternative to Mexico City existed and effective state protection and victim services were available in the Federal District, and because the claimant failed to establish that relocation would be unduly harsh or that state protection was unavailable despite available remedies and services, the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA7-03033
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Domestic Violence, Gender Related Persecution, Psychological/medical Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Domestic Violence Gender Related Persecution +3 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Mexico City is available
  3. 3 Whether Mexican state protection in the Federal District is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Because a viable internal flight alternative to Mexico City existed and effective state protection and victim services were available in the Federal District, and because the claimant failed to establish that relocation would be unduly harsh or that state protection was unavailable despite available remedies and services, the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant's claim for refugee protection is rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
  • Application under Rule 44 to vary the order of questioning was granted based on psychological evidence.