MA6-02612

MA6-02612

The panel found, based on documentary evidence and claimant's circumstances, that Mexico City offers effective state protection and services for victims of domestic violence, that it is reasonably accessible to the claimant, and that she failed to seek available protection or to prove a real risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment; therefore an internal flight alternative exists and the claim must be rejected.

Citation
MA6-02612
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Merits by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Domestic Violence, State Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Gender Based Violence Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Domestic Violence State Protection Convention Refugee +2 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Merits by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (Mexico City) was reasonably accessible to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether it was objectively unreasonable for the claimant to relocate within her country
  3. 3 Whether the state could and would protect the claimant from domestic violence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found, based on documentary evidence and claimant's circumstances, that Mexico City offers effective state protection and services for victims of domestic violence, that it is reasonably accessible to the claimant, and that she failed to seek available protection or to prove a real risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment; therefore an internal flight alternative exists and the claim must be rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.