TA5-13084

TA5-13084

The claimant's fear of a politically connected private actor did not overcome the finding that adequate state protection exists in Mexico City (D.F.), and relocation there was a reasonable and accessible alternative; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment and the refugee claim is rejected under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
TA5-13084
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker: Cliff Berry; Refugee Protection Officer: D. Johnston; Respondent Counsel: Counsel for the Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Relocation/flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Adequacy of Legislative Framework, Assessment of Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Gender Based Violence Law State Protection Internal Relocation/flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Cliff Berry

Decision Maker

D. Johnston

Refugee Protection Officer

Counsel for the Minister

Respondent Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant faces persecution or a real risk of serious harm from a private actor (former lover)
  2. 2 Whether Mexican state protection is adequate in Mexico City (D.F.) for victims of gender-based violence
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation to Mexico City is a reasonable alternative for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's fear of a politically connected private actor did not overcome the finding that adequate state protection exists in Mexico City (D.F.), and relocation there was a reasonable and accessible alternative; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment and the refugee claim is rejected under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act