CEDAW/C/59/D/49/2013
Facts as submitted by the author
2.1 In November 2008, the author began to live with K.R. in the State of Morelos
in Mexico. He admitted soon thereafter that he was living in Mexico with false
identity papers, that he had escaped from prison in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, where he had been convicted of armed robbery, and that he was a
member of a criminal gang in Mexico. She claims that she first was a victim of
domestic violence in December 2008. Incidents of domestic violence occurred again
in January, February and March 2009. Following the incident in March 2009, the
author was hospitalized for three days. After each incident, she filed a complaint
with the police, but no action was taken. During the incident in March 2009, the
author’s partner told her that he was aware of her previous complaints to the
authorities.
2.2 When the author was released from hospital in March 2009, she decided to live
with a friend. She also sought legal advice on how to obtain protection from her
partner. Because the lawyer told her that she could not obtain protection in Mexico,
she decided to leave on 25 May 2009. She indicates that, after her departure, her
partner telephoned her family and friends to ask about her location. In May and
September 2011, he twice visited the author’s mother to enquire about the author’s
whereabouts. During the second visit, while drunk, he assaulted the author’s mother
by slapping her on the face when she refused to tell him where the author was.
2.3 The author applied for refugee protection in Canada on 30 December 2011 on
the grounds that she would be a victim of domestic violence if she were returned to
Mexico. Her application was subject to the pre-removal risk assessment procedure,
given that she had, in 1999, submitted a claim for refugee protection with her former
partner, which had been rejected in 2000. After a hearing on 22 October 2012, the
author’s application was rejected on 5 December 2012 and the decision was
communicated to the author on 24 January 2013. The decision does not dispute that
the author was a victim of domestic violence and that she unsuccessfully sought to
obtain protection in Mexico. It concludes, however, that an intern al flight alternative
existed for the author in Mexico City and stressed in particular that, even if the
situation in Mexico concerning conjugal violence was not ideal, some remedies and
services existed to which the author could have access, in particular in Mexico City,
and that the author had failed to demonstrate why, in case of return, she could not
relocate to Mexico City, where she previously lived and worked, and, if necessary,
have access to the protection services there.
2.4 On 29 January 2013, the author applied for leave to seek judicial review of the
decision of 5 December 2012 before the Federal Court. On 31 January 2013, she
also submitted a motion to stay her removal while the judicial review was pending,
in which she argued that the possibility of an internal alternative flight was not an
aspect of State protection. Her motion was denied on 18 February 2013. The Court
determined that the finding of the procedure regarding the internal flight alternative
was within the spectrum of possible conclusions in the light of the facts and the law
in the case. The author was then informed that her deportation was scheduled for
27 February 2013. 2
__________________
2
14-67406
It is indicated in the deportation notice that she was to return to Mexico by 28 February 2013.
3/14