TA9-06684

TA9-06684

On the evidence and for the reasons given, the claimant did not provide clear and convincing proof that state protection in Mexico would be unavailable; Mexico has legal and institutional measures to protect victims of gender violence, police took steps in this matter, and a viable internal flight alternative (Guadalajara) exists, therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-06684
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Refusal)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Particular Social Group, Credibility
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Family Law Criminal Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a well-founded fear of persecution by her ex-partner
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (Guadalajara) is reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and for the reasons given, the claimant did not provide clear and convincing proof that state protection in Mexico would be unavailable; Mexico has legal and institutional measures to protect victims of gender violence, police took steps in this matter, and a viable internal flight alternative (Guadalajara) exists, therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the claimants