Prompt:
How does this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada evaluate refugee protection needs?

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TA7-04375, TA7-04376, TA7-04377, TA7-04378 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing April 23, 2008 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing TORONTO Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision July 24, 2008 Date de la décision Panel M. Freilich Tribunal Counsel for the Claimant(s) Waikwa Wanyoike Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du / de la / des demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Tribunal Officer Agent(e) des tribunaux Designated Representative(s) XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister Conseil du ministre These are the reasons for the negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) with respect to the claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (the principal claimant), a 31 year-old citizen of Mexico. His claim was joined with that of his wife XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (the female claimant), a 23 year-old citizen of Mexico and their minor children XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, a one and a half-year-old citizen of Mexico and three year-old XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, also a citizen of Mexico.1 The claimants claim protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).2 The claimants alleged that they have a well-founded fear of persecution if they were to return to Mexico by reason of their membership in a particular social group, that is, persons who have been targeted by organized crime. In addition, they claim to be persons in need of protection by reason of either a danger of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture or a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. In accordance with section 167(2) of Act, the father, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX was appointed the designated representative for the minor claimants for the purposes of their refugee claim. ISSUES AND DETERMINATION The determinative issue in these claims is whether a viable internal flight alternative ("IFA") exists for the claimants in Mexico, specifically in Mexico City in the Federal District including whether the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection. Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants have a viable internal flight alternative ("IFA") and they have not rebutted the presumption of state protection and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. Their removal to Mexico would not subject them personally to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and that there are no substantial grounds to believe that their removal to Mexico would subject them personally to a danger of torture. The panel has considered all of the claimant's evidence as well as the documents before it and counsel's submissions. ALLEGATIONS The principal claimant stated in his narrative to his Personal Information Form3 that on XXXXX, 2005 he joined the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX of XXXXX Puebla. Everything went well until XXXXX 2006. While he was at a gas station he was approached by a man who asked him if he wanted to make some money and that he had a business deal for the claimant. The claimant alleged that he ignored the offer and went home. On XXXXX, 2006 he received several calls at his office indicating that someone was looking for him. The claimant alleged that he went out to speak to two men who he did not know who allegedly showed him pictures of his children and his home and told him that they knew about the position he held and that he had to work for them or he would be harmed. On XXXXX, 2006, he was XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX on the XXXXX XXXXX in Puebla. When he asked a driver for his ID, the driver gave the claimant the telephone telling him there was a call for him. When the claimant took the phone it was allegedly his boss on the other end of the phone. The claimant alleged that the person on the phone was his supervisor XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX who told the claimant to let the truck pass because the truck driver was a friend of the supervisor. Since the claimant did not agree with this, his supervisor showed up and told the claimant he would speak to him later. The claimant alleged that the next morning he was called into his superior's office. When the principal claimant went to see his superior officer to discuss what had transpired the night before, the principal claimant's superior officer allegedly told the claimant that it was in his best interest not to talk to anyone about the situation. The claimant alleged that he told his supervisor that he was not going to become involved in corruption and that he would go to the appropriate state authorities. On XXXXX, 2006, as the claimant was leaving work, a vehicle cut him off, two individuals with guns, wearing hats, got out of their vehicle and beat and threatened the claimant. The claimant was taken to the hospital and he filed a formal complaint regarding the express kidnapping, beating and death threats against himself and his family. When he left the clinic on XXXXX, he decided that he did not want to have anything further to do with his job and resigned from the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX in Pueblo. During XXXXX he received several death threat phone calls saying that he knew too much. On XXXXX, 2007 he decided to hide at his uncle's home. On XXXXX, 2006, as they were heading toward the XXXXX XXXXX they noticed that they were being followed by the same men who had beaten him previously. The claimant and his family came to Canada on XXXXX, 2007 and made their claims for refugee protection on XXXXX, 2007. ANALYSIS To establish the status as Convention refugees, the claimants have to show that there is a "serious possibility" or "reasonable chance"4 that they would face persecution in Mexico. Alternatively, to establish that they are persons in need of protection, the claimants have to show that the their removal to Mexico would subject them personally either (a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture, or (b) to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. The panel has taken the Guideline on Child Refugee Claimants5 into consideration before rendering a decision in this claim. INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA) Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) arises when a claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in the home area of his or her country of citizenship, but can safely relocate to another part of the country. The test to be applied in determining whether there is an IFA is two-pronged: (i) there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted or subjected, on a balance of probabilities, to persecution or to a danger of torture or to a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA area, and (ii) conditions in the IFA area must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the claimant to seek refuge there.6 The second prong of the IFA test may be stated as follows: would it be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another less hostile part of the country before seeking refugee protection abroad?7 The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable.8 It is not enough for the claimant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.9 The fact that a claimant might be better off in Canada physically, economically and emotionally than in a safe place in his own country is not a factor to consider in assessing the reasonableness of the IFA.10 The panel is of the view that the claimants had an obligation to at least try to find a safe haven in their own country before abandoning it altogether and, unless it were patently unreasonable for them to do so, their failure to at least try will be fatal to their claim. The panel has considered whether a viable IFA exists for the claimants, specifically in Mexico City in the federal district, as this issue was canvassed with the claimants during the hearing. The panel asked the claimants if they could move to Mexico City and be safe. The principal claimant stated that there was nowhere in Mexico they could move and be safe because either the police or criminal elements could find them anywhere in Mexico. The panel finds that even if the claimants were to be found in Mexico City, and they should experience any incidents of violence in the future, the federal district has ample and adequate remedies adequate remedies. The panel notes that in this regard, the documentary evidence states.11 STATE PROTECTION The panel is not convinced, as it must be, that the state would not be reasonably forthcoming with serious efforts to protect the claimants if they were to return to Mexico. The panel finds that the totality of the evidence does not support a conclusion of state breakdown, nor does it rebut the presumption that Mexico is able to protect its nationals. A state is not expected to be able to provide perfect protection to its citizens. The issue is whether the government of Mexico is making serious efforts to provide adequate protection to individuals in the claimants' situation in Mexico. The panel is guided by the Court of Appeal decision of Kadenko,12 which held: When the state in question is a democratic state... the claimant must do more than simply show that he or she went to see some members of the police force and that his or her efforts were unsuccessful. The burden of proof that rests on the claimant is, in a way, directly proportional to the level of democracy in the state in question: the more democratic the state's institutions, the more the claimant must have done to exhaust all the courses of action open to him or her. In Villafranca,13 the Federal Court of Appeal found that the mere fact that a country is not always successful at protecting its citizens is not enough to justify a claim. It found that no government could guarantee the protection of all of its citizens at all times. In Milev,14 the Federal Court noted that the fact that the state does not provide perfect protection is not, in itself, a basis for determining that the state is unwilling or unable to offer reasonable protection in the circumstances. International refugee protection is not meant to permit a claimant the opportunity to seek better protection abroad that he/she would receive at home. The Supreme Court of Canada in Ward15 set out the principal that a state must be presumed capable of protection its citizens. This presumption can be rebutted by "clear and convincing" evidence of the state's inability to protect.16 A claimant is required to seek the protection of the authorities of his/her home country unless it is objectively unreasonable for him/her to do so.17 The test is such cases is forward-looking. The panel accepts that the principal claimant was a XXXXX XXXXX in Pueblo Mexico and that he XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX in 2005, graduating on XXXXX, 2005. The panel accepts that the claimant was what he described as XXXXX XXXXX along with doing XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. The panel accepts that the principal claimant was involved in XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX in Pueblo on XXXXX, 2006. The panel accepts that the principal claimant supervisor was himself involve in some type of corruption and advised the principal claimant to allow specific trucks go by XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. The panel accepts that the principal claimant went to see his supervisor the next morning and told him that he refused to participate in any part of corruption, and that he was going to report the situation to the authorities, and that his supervisor laughed at him. The principal claimant alleged that because he was unwilling to be involved in this corruption, two individuals carrying guns cut off his vehicle on XXXXX, 2006, beating and threatening the claimant. The panel accepts that the principal claimant was beaten and required medical attention at the clinic. The panel notes that the police report18 dated XXXXX, 2006 indicates that the claimant was robbed as he left work, there is nothing in the police report to indicate that the robbery was in anyway connected to his work as a XXXXX XXXXX nor does the report even mention that the principal claimant is a XXXXX XXXXX. The panel notes that when the principal claimant left the clinic on XXXXX, 2006, he quit his job and was no longer in a position to assist in any type of corruption involving the decision of his XXXXX XXXXX to not stop or not XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX in the future. The principal claimant alleged in oral evidence that on XXXXX, 2006, he had gone to the internal affairs person in charge to report this corruption, but that he was advised that he was young, had small children, and that the offer he was being given a was not such a bad opportunity, and that's many of the XXXXX XXXXX in Pablo were working in collusion so that drugs and guns would make their way to the United States, and at that the internal affairs personnel, and allegedly told the prince will claimant to join the group. The claimant alleged that he went back to work XXXXX, he was kidnapped for three hours in the morning of XXXXX, 2006, he stated in oral evidence that he was not injured but that he had internal injuries and therefore went to a clinic. The principal claimant alleged that the doctor at the clinic called the officials from the public Ministry who came to the clinic to see the principal claimant. The principal claimant alleged that they made him make a report only about the kidnapping and would not take down any information about the corruption. The principal claimant stated in oral evidence that he never returned to work after he left the clinic, and that he moved to his mother's home on XXXXX 2006 where he stayed until XXXXX 2007, in the state of Mexico four hours away from Pueblo. The principal claimant alleged that he started to receive death threats over the phone, indicating that they would kill the principal claimant and his family. The principal claimant and his family moved back to Pueblo with a state for one month until they came to Canada. While the panel accepted that the principal claimant's supervisor may have been involved in some type of local corruption, the panel is hard pressed to find that individuals within the Internal Affairs Department, who are in place to investigate corruption, would have given the principal claimant advice to go back and be part of the corruption rather than file a report on his behalf. In regard to the availability of state protection in Mexico City the panel takes note of the most recent documentary evidence, which states and that Mexico is a functioning democracy,19 and thus the presumption of state protection applies. The claimants can rebut this presumption by providing "clear and convincing" evidence that the state of Mexico is unable or unwilling to protect them.20 For the reasons that follow, I find that the claimants have failed to rebut this presumption. The documentary evidence states that: Mexico is a federal constitutional republic with a population of 108 million. In July 2006 Felipe Calderon of the National Action Party (PAN) was elected president to a six-year term in generally free and fair multiparty elections. While civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, there were frequent instances in which elements of the security forces acted independently of government authority. The government generally respected and promoted human rights at the national level by investigating, prosecuting, and sentencing public officials and members of the security forces. However, impunity and corruption remained problems, particularly at the state and local level. The following human rights problems were reported: unlawful killings by security forces; kidnappings, including by police; physical abuse; poor and overcrowded prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detention; corruption, inefficiency, and lack of transparency in the judicial system; confessions coerced through physical abuse permitted as evidence in trials; criminal intimidation of journalists leading to self-censorship; corruption at all levels of government; domestic violence against women, often perpetrated with impunity; violence, including killings, against women; trafficking in persons, sometimes allegedly with official involvement; social and economic discrimination against indigenous people; and child labor. As a first step, in efforts to reform and professionalize the police, the government relieved 284 federal police commanders, including all 34 regional police commanders, and rigorously trained and evaluated their replacements.21 In terms of corruption within the police system, the panel looked to the following in regard to the actions taken by the federal, state, and municipal police. Role of the Police and Security Apparatus The federal, state, and municipal police forces included approximately 500,000 officers. The federal and state police are divided into preventive and judicial police. Preventive police maintain order and public security and generally do not investigate crimes. Judicial police serve as the investigative force under the authority and command of the public ministries (prosecutor's offices). The military is responsible for external security but also has significant domestic security responsibilities, particularly in combating drug trafficking and maintaining order. Corruption continued to be a problem, as many police were involved in kidnapping, extortion, or providing protection for, or acting directly on behalf of organized crime and drug traffickers. Impunity was pervasive to an extent that victims often refused to file complaints. Responsibility for investigating federal police abuse falls under the purview of the PGR and the Secretariat of Public Administration, depending on the type of offence. The CNDH also can receive complaints, but its recommendations are nonbinding and carry no legal weight. However, once a government entity accepts a CNDH recommendation, it is legally bound to take appropriate action. A similar mechanism exists at the state level. The CNDH provided human rights training for security and military forces, and the government continued professional training of its law enforcement officials. Between January and October, in conjunction with the CNDH, the National Defence Secretariat SEDENA trained more than 13,500 employees, and the Secretariat for Public Security (SSP) trained more than 18,000 employees in human rights issues. In June 284 federal police commanders were relieved of their duties, including all of the 34 regional police coordinators as part of the government's anticorruption and transparency reform. The SSP began a comprehensive polygraph program with the goal of training several hundred polygraph operators over the next two years in order to utilize this tool to eliminate corruption within the SSP. The CNDH expressed concern about alleged human rights abuses committed by some military units deployed in counter narcotics and other law enforcement operations. On September 21, the CNDH cited four separate incidents implicating military units in killings, illegal searches, rapes, and arbitrary detentions of individuals. By year's end the CNDH had issued four recommendations on those cases to EDENA, which accepted all four and agreed to investigate. Further, in terms of the Government efforts to combat corruption, the panel looks to further documentary evidence which states: Government efforts Reports issued in 2006 by both the United States (US) and Mexico governments noted that the federal government continued to work on reducing corruption levels in Mexico by investigating and sanctioning employee misconduct. The US Department of State noted in its International Narcotics Control Strategy Report 2006 (INCSR 2006) that the government of Mexico continued to promote anticorruption efforts in 2005: "President Fox and other senior officials have demanded that all agencies, departments, and government institutions, including Mexican military services, adhere to strict enforcement of anticorruption measures". These measures include, among other things, better employee selection procedures and improved remuneration and benefits. In addition, from January to October 2005, federal authorities "conducted more than 4,512 investigations into possible misconduct by federal officers and government employees" according to the INCSR 2006, [t]hese investigations resulted in the issuance of 68 warnings, 1,296 reprimands, suspensions of 918 employees, dismissals of 284 federal employees, dismissals of another 1,058 employees with re-employment sanctions or restrictions for service within the government sector, and 905 economic sanctions resulting in over 3 billion pesos (about $300 million) in fines and recoveries. Most sanctions resulted from violation of laws or abuse of authority by public servants. The federal government's National Development Plan's Fifth Performance Report 2005 (Quinto Informe de Ejecucion 2005 del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo) provides information on a number of initiatives aimed at reducing corruption throughout the country. The Inter-Secretarial Commission for Transparency and the Fight against Corruption (Comision Intersecretarial para la Transparencia y el Combate a la Corrupcion, CITCC) reportedly increased its operational coverage from 161 public institutions in 2004 to 236 in 2005. CITCC programs aim to promote and coordinate anti-corruption strategies in order to increase transparency in public management. Through such programs, the CITCC identified 1,839 potential areas of irregular conduct in 2005, and instigated 3,874 corrective actions (acciones de mejora), a 4.3 per cent increase in such actions from 2004. Regarding the sanction of acts of impunity and corruption, the 2005 National Development Plan Report noted that 4,079 public servants were cited with 5,597 administrative penalties for employee misconduct, which marked an 8.6 per cent decrease from the number of employees likewise charged in 2004. The federal government also offers a number of services for citizens to denounce corruption in the public service, including online assistance (Sistema Electronico de Atencion Cidudadana, SEAC), direct assistance from Internal Control offices (Organos Internos de Control, OIC), and a telephone helpline (Sistema de Atencion Telefonica a la Ciudadania, SACTEL). Statistics compiled for 2005 showed that of the 27,147 online requests received by the SEAC, 12,431 were complaints and denunciations (quejas y denuncias). As for direct assistance, of a total of 128,488 requests heard by various government offices, 92,372 were made at central federal departments and 15,133 were filed directly at OIC offices. The SACTEL responded to 144,157 phone calls about various services and procedures within the federal government. Moreover, regional supervisors conducted 493 investigations of various public agencies, resulting in 34 complaints and denunciations, 548 follow-ups for irregularities (seguimientos de irregularidades), and 490 immediate corrective actions (acciones de mejora inmediamente). The 2005 National Development Plan Report also indicated that the National Registry of Public Security Personnel (Registro Nacional de Personal de Seguridad Publica) was nearly complete, reportedly containing the names of 427,418 active public security agents from across the 32 states of Mexico, as well as those of 46,191 private security agents. Effectively, the registry enables background checks for prior misconduct among personnel to be performed in order to reduce police corruption. Other efforts to deter corruption in the police forces include psychological evaluation and drug testing, economic incentives for good performance, education and training opportunities, disciplinary action, regulatory reviews by Internal Affairs (Asuntos Internos), and investigations and prosecutions by the OIC of the Secretary of Public Security (Secretaria de Seguridad Publica, SSP). Also in 2005, news sources reported on the efforts of authorities to rid state and local-level law enforcement of corruption. In May 2005, the new governor of Guerrero state announced the dissolution of the "notorious" State Transit and Public Safety Police, which was reportedly "known for corruption and arms trafficking". In June 2005, ushering in "Operation 'Safe Mexico'," an initiative to combat drug-trafficking and police corruption, "federal and state authorities carried out a massive purge of police in the border city of Nuevo Laredo, firing 400 municipal officers". PGJDF Within the Office of the Attorney General of the Federal District (Procuraduria General de Justicia del Distrito Federal, PGJDF), the position of inspector general (visitaduria general) has existed since 1977 (Mexico n.d.a.). The inspector general investigates and monitors complaints against the Public Ministry (Ministerio Publico) and its judicial police agents in order to [translation] "combat corruption and impunity head-on, respect human rights and restore the public's trust" (Mexico n.d.b). According to an activity report for the period of January to March 2004, the inspector general conducted 4,268 visits and undertook 10,978 examinations of PGJDF personnel, which resulted in proceedings against a number of PGJDF employees, including 147 public ministry agents, 111 official secretaries (oficial secretario), 46 agency heads (responsable de agencia), 17 judicial police officers, and 13 experts (peritos). In October 2004, Bernardo Batiz, the Attorney General of the Federal District, noted that while the PGJDF housed an Internal Inspection Unit (Unidad de Inspeccion Interna) that specifically monitors judicial police agents, the office lacked an adequate internal control mechanism to safeguard against administrative personnel committing acts of corruption. Overall, however, Batiz explained that whoever commits illegal acts within the PGJDF would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment (ibid.). Such was the case for an officer, mentioned in the same article in which Batiz was quoted, who was arrested and jailed on kidnapping charges. In press statements made to the EFE News Service in April 2006 upon the release of its annual report, the Human Rights Commission of the Federal District (Comision de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal, CDHDF), without providing details as to which police agency was involved, reported that arbitrary arrests in Mexico City had increased "13 per cent over the previous year". In particular, the CDHDF stated that in 2005 "1,352 people lodged complaints about illegal detentions and that, of those, it investigated 666 cases, up from 586 in 2004 and 441 in 2003".. The CDHDF also called on "Mexico City police and prosecutors to assume a public commitment and show political will to eliminate all forms of illegal privation of liberty" (ibid.). The panel finds that if the principal claimant were to move to Mexico City and decide that he wanted to become a XXXXX XXXXX again, if he were to be faced with the possibility of working with requests for him to participate in corruption, there are effective protective mechanisms that have been put in place by the Mexican Government to protect individuals such as the principal claimant and his family. The panel notes that the first alleged incident of persecution began on XXXXX, 20906. By XXXXX, the principal claimant had already resigned from the XXXXX XXXXX and by XXXXX, 2007, less than three months later, the principal claimant and his family had come to Canada. The panel further notes, that in the Federal Court decision of Hussain, Majeed,22 the court stated that the applicant was too quick to assume that no state protection was available. The panel is also guided by the Federal Court decision in De Baez:23 ...the actions of some police officers do not obviate the need to seek protection from the authorities. Discrimination by some police officers is not sufficient proof of the state's unwillingness to provide, or inability on the part of the applicants, to seek protection. The claimants have therefore not established that they would face the risks of harm found in sections 96 or 97(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The panel takes further guidance from the recent Federal Court Decision in Flores Carrillo,24 which states A refugee who claims that the state protection is inadequate or non-existent bears the evidentiary burden of adducing evidence to that effect and the legal burden of persuading the trier of fact that his or her claim in this respect is founded. The standard of proof applicable is the balance of probabilities and there is no requirement of a higher degree of probability than what that standard usually requires. As for the quality of the evidence required to rebut the presumption of state protection, the presumption is rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the state protection is inadequate or non-existent. Having found that the claimants are not Convention refugees, the panel also considered the applicability of sections 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the Act, and finds that no evidence was adduced that would support a finding that the claimants face a danger of torture. With respect to a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, the panel's finding with respect to degree of risk or harm and the level or harm they face and the availability of state protection applies to this ground as well. On a balance of probabilities, the claimant will not be subjected personally to a risk of life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment on return to Mexico. Having also found that there is adequate state protection, the claim fails under section 97 of the Act. After careful consideration of all the evidence and because of the reasons set out above, the panel finds that the claimants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of any of the enumerated grounds. Having found that the claimants are not Convention refugees, the panel also considered the applicability of sections 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the Act, and finds that no evidence was adduced that would support a finding that the claimants face a danger of torture. With respect to a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, the panel's findings with respect to the availability of state protection, applies to this ground as well. Having found that there is adequate state protection, the claims also fail under section 97 of the Act. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Refugee Protection Division determines that the claimants are not Convention refugee nor are they persons in need of protection and therefore, rejects their claims for refugee protection. (signed) "M. Freilich" M. Freilich July 24, 2008 Date REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / EMPLOYMENT / VICTIM OF CONFLICT / ORGANIZED CRIMINALITY / CORRUPTION / HIDING / GUIDELINES / CHILDREN / INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE / STATE PROTECTION / MALE / SPOUSE / CHILDREN / NEGATIVE / MEXICO 1 Exhibit R/A/2 - certified true copies of the claimants' Mexico passports. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27. 3 Exhibit C-1. 4 Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 680 (C.A.). 5 Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa, Canada, September 30, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson n June 28 2002, pursuant to section 159 (1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 6 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.). 7 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994], 1.F.C. 589 (C.A.). 8 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 1 Imm. L.R. (3d) 245 (F.C.T.D.). 9 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994], 1.F.C. 589 (C.A.) pp. 596-599. 10 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 1 Imm. L.R. (3d) 245 (F.C.T.D.). 11 Exhibit R/A/1 - Item 5.6. REFINFO MEX1025551.E, June 13, 2007 - Mexico: Protection available to women victims of domestic violence in the state of Jalisco (2005 - May 2007). 12 M.C.I. v. Kadenko, Ninal (F.C.A., no. A-388-95), Hugessen, Décary, Chevalier, October 15, 1996. Reported: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kadenko (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532 (F.C.A.).. 13 Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.). 14 Milev, Dane v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1125-95), MacKay, June 28, 1996. 15 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689. 16 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at 724-726. 17 Ibid. at 724. 18 Exhibit C-5, Item 2. 19 Exhibit R/A/1, RPD Information Package, March 19 2008, item 2.1, United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights - 2007, March 11, 2008. 20 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689. 21 Ibid., Exhibit 18. 22 Hussain, Majeed v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2345-02), O'Reilly, April 8, 2003. 23 De Baez, Mario Beatrice Arguello v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3208-02), Dawson, June 26, 2003; F.C.T. 785. 24 M.C.I. v. Flores Carrillo 2008 F.C.A. 94. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TA7-04375, TA7-04376, TA7-04377, TA7-04378 13 RPD.15.7 (October 2007) Disponible en français

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: TA7-04375

### Key Issues
poses of their refugee claim. ISSUES AND DETERMINATION The determinative issue in these claims is whether a viable internal flight alternative ("IFA") exists for the claimants in M

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: ee protection on XXXXX, 2007. ANALYSIS To establish the status as Convention refugees, the claimants have to show that there is a "serious possibility" or "reasonable chance"4 that they would face persecution in Mexico. Alternatively, to establish that they are persons in need of protection, the claimants have to show that the t

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.