TA7-02078

TA7-02078

The Tribunal found on the evidence that the Federal District (Mexico City) provides a legislative framework and implementing measures constituting adequate state protection, that it is reasonable for the claimant to relocate there, and that no compelling reasons under section 108 IRPA excuse relocation; accordingly the claimant failed to establish a lack of state protection and the refugee claim was rejected under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA7-02078
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision / Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Sexual Abuse, Compelling Reasons, Mexico
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Sexual Abuse Compelling Reasons Mexico

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

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision / Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection exists in the Federal District (D.F.) of Mexico City
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to the D.F. is reasonable for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found on the evidence that the Federal District (Mexico City) provides a legislative framework and implementing measures constituting adequate state protection, that it is reasonable for the claimant to relocate there, and that no compelling reasons under section 108 IRPA excuse relocation; accordingly the claimant failed to establish a lack of state protection and the refugee claim was rejected under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

Orders

  • Claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.