Case Law

4 August 2022 | Judicial Body: Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación | Topic(s): Internally displaced persons (IDPs) | Countries: Mexico

11 August 2020 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Domestic violence - Non-state agents of persecution - Social group persecution - Women-at-risk | Countries: Mexico - United States of America

This matter is related to various omissions attributed to immigration authorities in the conduct of a procedure to obtain asylum requested by an unaccompanied migrant minor. The First Chamber of the SCJN determined to exercise its power of attraction to establish whether the administrative authorities of the Mexican State are bound by the provisions of “General Observation No. 6 (2005) Treatment of unaccompanied minors and separated from their relatives outside of their country of origin”, issued on the basis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The matter will also make it possible to determine who are the competent administrative authorities to promote, respect, protect and guarantee the human rights of migrant girls, boys and adolescents, unaccompanied, asylum seekers, who are within the national territory and, finally, establish whether there is –or not–, within the substantiation of an amparo lawsuit, the obligation of one of the parties to prove the existence of the act that is claimed when it is omission –not legislative– in nature; and, if the answer is affirmative, decide who has the burden of proof: responsible authority (allegedly omission), or the complainant (who claims the alleged omission).

19 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación | Topic(s): Political asylum | Countries: Mexico

The case refers to the prolonged detention suffered by two asylum seekers during the refugee status recognition procedure that was being substantiated before COMAR. They were reportedly placed at the disposal of the National Migration Institute and kept in prolonged detention for a long period of time. The Working Group concluded that the Mexican State was responsible for the arbitrary detention of the petitioners and for the violation of articles 7, 8, 9, and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls within categories I, II and IV related to the Group's mandate.

18 February 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Council | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention | Countries: Mexico

The Director of Protection and Return of the Coordination of the Mexican Commission of Aid to Refugees of the Ministry of the Interior requested an amparo against the refusal to relapse to the request for recognition of the status of refugee of a woman decided. Articles 18 of the Law on Refugees, Complementary Protection and Political Asylum and 19 of its respective regulations were challenged, which established a 30-day period for submitting an application for refugee recognition and exceptionally, outside of that period, the foreigner person should prove that for reasons beyond his control it was not materially possible to present it in a timely manner. The Second Chamber of the SCJN determined that the term established in the contested regulations is contrary to the right of every person to seek and receive asylum. Furthermore, because the affected person proved to be in the exceptional case and, therefore, the agreement in which the admission of the refugee status application submitted was denied was illegal.

6 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación | Topic(s): Right to seek asylum | Countries: Mexico

A person with foreign nationality entered the Mexican State by air, having only 180 days that are granted to any foreign person to be in Mexico. The complainant requested the recognition of her refugee status. The Director of Protection and Return of the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR) asked her the reasons why it was physically impossible for her to request refugee recognition within 30 days after entering Mexico, to which she replied that she was not aware, therefore, the request was denied. The Second Chamber, when carrying out an analysis of article 19 of the Regulation of the Law on Refugees and Complementary Protection, held that it was proven to be in the exceptional case provided for in the aforementioned paragraph and, therefore, the agreement in which the claim was denied is illegal. This is so, given the reasons provided by the applicant for which she was unable to submit her application for recognition in a timely manner, for which reason it had to be admitted for processing.

23 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación | Topic(s): Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Mexico

A person with foreign nationality entered the Mexican State by air, having only 180 days that are granted to any foreign person to be in Mexico. The complainant requested the recognition of her refugee status. The Director of Protection and Return of the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR) requested the reasons why it was materially impossible for her to request refugee recognition within 30 days after entering Mexico, to which she replied that she was unaware, therefore, the request was denied. The Second Chamber, when conducting an analysis of Article 19 of the Regulations of the Law on Refugees and Complementary Protection, held that the agreement in which the admission of the application for recognition of refugee status presented was illegal, is illegal. This is so, given the reasons given by the applicant for which she was unable to submit her application for recognition in a timely manner, for which reason it had to be admitted for processing.

23 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación | Topic(s): Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Mexico

An individual entered the national territory, leaving his country of origin due to the conditions of persecution, insecurity, and human rights violations. By means of a document submitted to the Mexican Commission for Aid to Refugees, he requested recognition of his refugee status, however, it was denied. The Second Chamber considered that in accordance with an interpretation of numeral 19 of the Regulation of the Law on Refugees and Complementary Protection, the state of vulnerability in which the refugee applicants are in Mexico must be considered, therefore the accreditation to present the request outside the period established by law should not be strict or rigorous, as it would not be valid for them to be required to prove the inability they had to submit their application in time. Failure to submit the application within a specific period should not automatically lead to the rejection of the respective application, but rather consider those cases in which the submission outside the legal deadline was due to justified reasons. Therefore, it was decided to protect two applicants for recognition of refugee status, against the refusal of the authorities responsible for admitting their applications because they did not prove a cause beyond their control that prevented them from submitting said request within the legal term.

16 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación | Topic(s): Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Mexico

An individual entered the national territory, leaving his country of origin, due to the conditions of persecution, insecurity, and human rights violations. By means of a document submitted to the Mexican Commission for Aid to Refugees, the individual requested recognition of his refugee status, however, it was denied. The Second Chamber considered that in accordance with an interpretation of numeral 19 of the Regulation of the Law on Refugees and Complementary Protection, the state of vulnerability in which the refugee applicants are in Mexico must be considered, therefore the accreditation to present the request outside the period established by law should not be strict or rigorous, as it would not be valid for them to be required to prove the inability they had to submit their application in time. Failure to submit the application within a specific period should not automatically lead to the rejection of the respective application, but rather consider those cases in which the submission outside the legal deadline was due to justified reasons. Therefore, it was decided to protect two applicants for recognition of refugee status, against the refusal of the authorities responsible for admitting their applications because they did not prove a cause beyond their control that prevented them from submitting said request within the legal term.

16 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación | Topic(s): Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Mexico

This case presents us with a simple question: do non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings before immigration judges? The answer, based on the plain language of § 1228, is yes.

20 August 2019 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Legal representation / Legal aid - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Mexico - United States of America