TA7-02093

TA7-02093

The claims were rejected because the Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that viable internal flight alternatives existed in Guadalajara or Monterrey, that state protection and avenues for recourse were available, and that the claimants failed to attempt or demonstrate the unreasonableness of relocation, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA7-02093
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Alyssa Manning; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Hearing and Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claims rejected; refugee protection denied
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution, Risk of Torture, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution Risk of Torture Burden of Proof

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Alyssa Manning

Counsel for Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Hearing and Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether state protection was available and effective
  3. 3 Whether claimants established a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life or torture

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that viable internal flight alternatives existed in Guadalajara or Monterrey, that state protection and avenues for recourse were available, and that the claimants failed to attempt or demonstrate the unreasonableness of relocation, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; refugee protection denied

Orders

  • Claims of the claimant and minor claimant are rejected
  • No protection under section 96 or 97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA granted