TA7-07355

TA7-07355

Because the panel found that a viable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico City and that state protection and victim services there made relocation reasonable, and because the claimant failed to prove on the required standard that the perpetrator's influence extended to that area or that she faced a serious possibility of persecution there, the claim was rejected and she was not found to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA7-07355
Parties
Claimant (asylum Seeker): XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected: not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Particular Social Group (women), Nexus, Burden of Proof, Gender Based Persecution, Sexual Assault, Stalking
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law Gender Based Violence Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Particular Social Group (women) +5 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (asylum Seeker)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground (female member of particular social group)
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Mexico City/Federal District) exists
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection is available and accessible

Ratio Decidendi

Because the panel found that a viable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico City and that state protection and victim services there made relocation reasonable, and because the claimant failed to prove on the required standard that the perpetrator's influence extended to that area or that she faced a serious possibility of persecution there, the claim was rejected and she was not found to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's refugee protection claim