TA6-05452

TA6-05452

The panel found on the balance of probabilities that Mexico City is a reasonable internal flight alternative and that state mechanisms there provide adequate (though not perfect) protection against Federal Police abuse; therefore the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution and the refugee claim is rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-05452
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Government of Canada; Decision Maker: Cliff Berry
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Harassment, Abduction, Credibility, Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Harassment Abduction Credibility +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Government of Canada

Respondent

Cliff Berry

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mexico City is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Mexico City is adequate to prevent persecution by Federal Police
  3. 3 Whether the claimant established a serious possibility of persecution on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found on the balance of probabilities that Mexico City is a reasonable internal flight alternative and that state mechanisms there provide adequate (though not perfect) protection against Federal Police abuse; therefore the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution and the refugee claim is rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

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