MA9-04319

MA9-04319

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to prove that relocation to Guadalajara or Mexico F.D. would be unreasonable or that her husband would be able to find and persecute her there; documentary evidence showed available services for abused women and the husband’s ability to locate her in those large cities was not established, therefore no serious possibility of persecution or risk under subsection 97(1) was shown.

Citation
MA9-04319
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Spousal Abuse, Gender Related Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Torture and Cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Spousal Abuse Gender Related Persecution +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the claimant established that an internal flight alternative (IFA) was unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the claimant would face a risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to prove that relocation to Guadalajara or Mexico F.D. would be unreasonable or that her husband would be able to find and persecute her there; documentary evidence showed available services for abused women and the husband’s ability to locate her in those large cities was not established, therefore no serious possibility of persecution or risk under subsection 97(1) was shown.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed