MB7-01248

MB7-01248

The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellant failed to meet her burden to show that no internal flight alternative existed because the RPD reasonably found the former spouse lacked proven interest or means to locate them in Guadalajara or Mexico City and the claimant did not rebut the presumption of available state protection; therefore they are not refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB7-01248
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Refugee Protection Division
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Decision on Appeal (no Hearing Requested)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Domestic Violence, State Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Domestic Violence State Protection Standard of Review

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child / Person in Cause

Refugee Protection Division

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Decision on Appeal (no Hearing Requested)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) existed (Guadalajara or Mexico City)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD made perverse or capricious findings of fact or law in rejecting the claim
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available to the claimant in the proposed IFA locations

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellant failed to meet her burden to show that no internal flight alternative existed because the RPD reasonably found the former spouse lacked proven interest or means to locate them in Guadalajara or Mexico City and the claimant did not rebut the presumption of available state protection; therefore they are not refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • The determination of the RPD is confirmed: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and her minor daughter are not refugees under section 96 or persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.