TA9-14180

TA9-14180

On the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to prove that effective state protection is unavailable in Mexico and failed to show that internal relocation to Guadalajara would be unreasonable; objective country evidence demonstrates Mexico has legal frameworks and institutions able to provide protection, therefore the claimant and her minor daughter are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-14180
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Eduardo E. Cisternas; Counsel for Minister: N/A; Tribunal Member: C. Wedgbury
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision Following Hearing (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimant and minor claim denied
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Burden of Proof, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Family and Domestic Violence State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution Burden of Proof +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Eduardo E. Cisternas

Counsel for Claimant

N/A

Counsel for Minister

C. Wedgbury

Tribunal Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision Following Hearing (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the state of Mexico can provide effective protection
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Mexico (Guadalajara)

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to prove that effective state protection is unavailable in Mexico and failed to show that internal relocation to Guadalajara would be unreasonable; objective country evidence demonstrates Mexico has legal frameworks and institutions able to provide protection, therefore the claimant and her minor daughter are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimant and minor claim denied

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; no refugee protection or protected person status granted