TA9-10620

TA9-10620

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide effective state protection because she did not exhaust reasonable state remedies and did not provide clear and convincing evidence of systemic state inability; additionally a viable internal flight alternative (Guadalajara) exists where she could reasonably relocate; therefore on a balance of probabilities she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-10620
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; principal claimant and joined minor child are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Burden of Proof, Credibility, Convention Refugee Determination, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Family Law Criminal Law (domestic Violence) Particular Social Group Internal Flight Alternative State Protection +4 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants face a well-founded fear of persecution by a private actor based on membership of a particular social group (family)
  2. 2 Whether the state of Mexico is unwilling or unable to provide protection (state protection)
  3. 3 Whether the claimants took reasonable steps to seek state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide effective state protection because she did not exhaust reasonable state remedies and did not provide clear and convincing evidence of systemic state inability; additionally a viable internal flight alternative (Guadalajara) exists where she could reasonably relocate; therefore on a balance of probabilities she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; principal claimant and joined minor child are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claims dismissed; no protection granted