TA6-15001

TA6-15001

Mexico City (D.F.) constitutes a viable internal flight alternative because a federal legislative framework and implementing measures exist and operate there; the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and did not show post-departure changes amounting to compelling reasons, therefore the claim fails under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-15001
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Merits (refusal)
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Change of Circumstances, Compelling Reasons
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence Change of Circumstances +1 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Merits (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mexico City (D.F.) is a viable internal flight alternative
  2. 2 Whether the state provides adequate protection to women in the D.F.
  3. 3 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Mexico City (D.F.) constitutes a viable internal flight alternative because a federal legislative framework and implementing measures exist and operate there; the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and did not show post-departure changes amounting to compelling reasons, therefore the claim fails under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act