TA7-14851

TA7-14851

The decision rests on finding a viable internal flight alternative in Mexico City and that the harm alleged was limited to harassment rather than persecution or a real risk to life/torture; claimants failed to attempt internal relocation and state protection and traceability assessments indicate they would not face the required level of risk, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96/97 IRPA.

Citation
TA7-14851
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX (male claimant); Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX (female claimant); Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX (minor claimant); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, State Protection, Risk of Torture, Harassment, Country Conditions (mexico)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status State Protection Risk of Torture Harassment +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX (male claimant)

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX (female claimant)

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX (minor claimant)

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether claimants have a well‑founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The decision rests on finding a viable internal flight alternative in Mexico City and that the harm alleged was limited to harassment rather than persecution or a real risk to life/torture; claimants failed to attempt internal relocation and state protection and traceability assessments indicate they would not face the required level of risk, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96/97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee claims dismissed
  • No protection granted under section 96 or section 97(1) of the IRPA