TA4-06412

TA4-06412

Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did not rebut the presumption of state protection because she failed to credibly seek protection and an adequate, reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico City with government and NGO support; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97 of IRPA.

Citation
TA4-06412
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: C. Diaz
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claim denied: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Torture and Risk to Life
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence State Protection Credibility Assessment +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

C. Diaz

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee as a member of the particular social group 'women abused by a fiancé'
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Mexico City is available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did not rebut the presumption of state protection because she failed to credibly seek protection and an adequate, reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico City with government and NGO support; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim denied: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.