TA9-08181

TA9-08181

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection for Mexico on a balance of probabilities because she did not take reasonable or diligent steps to seek protection or exhaust available remedies, and documentary evidence establishes that Mexico has adequate legal mechanisms and is making serious efforts to address domestic violence and police corruption; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TA9-08181
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Protection From Torture, Mexico Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Criminal Law State Protection Domestic Violence Refugee Protection +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection was available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection for Mexico on a balance of probabilities because she did not take reasonable or diligent steps to seek protection or exhaust available remedies, and documentary evidence establishes that Mexico has adequate legal mechanisms and is making serious efforts to address domestic violence and police corruption; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claim (Decision dated May 4, 2010)