TB8-02452

TB8-02452

The RPD erred in concluding Mexico City was a viable internal flight alternative; given the Appellants' profile (indigenous evangelical females, single mother, credible history of family persecution by EZLN, credible threats from a criminal former partner), and objective country evidence of systemic discrimination,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB8-02452
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Minor Appellant; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Substitution of Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellants declared Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Indigenous Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Particular Social Group, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Gender Based Persecution Indigenous Discrimination Domestic Violence +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Minor Appellant

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Substitution of Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mexico City was a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Mexico was adequate
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants face a well-founded fear of persecution under s.96 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in concluding Mexico City was a viable internal flight alternative; given the Appellants' profile (indigenous evangelical females, single mother, credible history of family persecution by EZLN, credible threats from a criminal former partner), and objective country evidence of systemic discrimination, gender violence and ineffective state protection throughout Mexico, there is no reasonable IFA or adequate protection and on balance of probabilities the Appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution; the RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellants declared Convention refugees

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, set aside the RPD determination and substitute it with a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees
  • Admissible new evidence denied and request for oral hearing refused