TB0-03720

TB0-03720

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence, her credibility and documentary evidence were questioned, and, in the alternative, a viable internal flight alternative (e.g. Guadalajara or Monterrey) existed where she could reasonably relocate.

Citation
TB0-03720
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision Determination
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Related Persecution, Domestic Violence, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gender Related Persecution Domestic Violence +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico
  3. 3 Whether the claimant established nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence, her credibility and documentary evidence were questioned, and, in the alternative, a viable internal flight alternative (e.g. Guadalajara or Monterrey) existed where she could reasonably relocate.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be in need of protection