TA6-12362

TA6-12362

Because the Federal District (Mexico City) has a demonstrable legal framework and institutions offering effective protection and assistance to victims of domestic and sexual violence, and the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that she could not obtain protection or that relocation would be unduly harsh, an internal flight alternative exists and the claim must be rejected.

Citation
TA6-12362
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Domestic Violence, Sexual Violence, Convention Refugee, Risk Assessment, Unduly Harsh Relocation
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Domestic Violence Sexual Violence +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence of an internal flight alternative in Mexico City
  2. 2 Effectiveness of state protection in the Federal District
  3. 3 Whether it would be unduly harsh for the claimant to relocate to Mexico City

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Federal District (Mexico City) has a demonstrable legal framework and institutions offering effective protection and assistance to victims of domestic and sexual violence, and the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that she could not obtain protection or that relocation would be unduly harsh, an internal flight alternative exists and the claim must be rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA