TA6-07148

TA6-07148

The Tribunal found that Mexico City provides adequate state protection for homosexuals and that relocation there would not be unduly harsh for the claimant; the claimant's alleged fear of a powerful politician does not negate available state protection in Mexico City, therefore the claimant has not established a well-founded fear of persecution and the claim is rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA6-07148
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Merits by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment; viable internal flight alternative found in Mexico City.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution Based on Sexual Orientation, Particular Social Group
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution Based on Sexual Orientation Particular Social Group

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Merits by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Mexico (Mexico City) for a homosexual claimant
  2. 2 Whether the state provides adequate protection in Mexico City for homosexuals
  3. 3 Whether relocation to Mexico City would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Mexico City provides adequate state protection for homosexuals and that relocation there would not be unduly harsh for the claimant; the claimant's alleged fear of a powerful politician does not negate available state protection in Mexico City, therefore the claimant has not established a well-founded fear of persecution and the claim is rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment; viable internal flight alternative found in Mexico City.

Orders

  • Claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c.27)