CEDAW/C/50/D/26/2010 house in Los Reyes de la Paz, where he also lives. The author contends that this fact, together with the prior death threats he formulated, show that he is waiting for her, and that her safety is at risk should she return to Mexico. 2.5 On 30 April 2009, the author’s PRRA application, presented on the basis of conjugal violence, was rejected. The decision stressed, inter alia, that: (a) the author failed to establish that the Mexican authorities were unable to offer her protection; (b) she has an important family in Mexico, who could assist her and her children in resettling in a new town in Mexico, at a distance from her husband’s place of residence; (c) although spousal abuse is a widespread problem in Mexico, avenues such as complaining to the police, or seeking refuge in a shelter, are open to women victims of violence. 2.6 On 27 October 2009, the author’s H&C application for permanent residence based on conjugal violence was dismissed. The Immigration agent who considered her application concluded that the author and her children would not suffer unjustified or disproportionate hardship for the following reasons: (a) the author could seek protection in a shelter in Mexico; (b) she need not return to her former domicile in Los Reyes de la Paz where her husband also lives, but could choose a residence elsewhere in Mexico; (c) her children have not been affected by, and seem to cope, with the situation; and (d) State protection for victims of conjugal violence is available in Mexico, as new laws were enacted to protect women from violence. On 12 November 2009, her application for leave to initiate judicial review of the H&C decision was rejected by the Federal Court. A stay of removal was ordered by the Federal Court on 25 November 2009. 2.7 In March 2010, two Canadian social workers concerned by Canada’s negative decisions in the author’s and other Mexican women’s cases travelled to Mexico to undertake a first-hand assessment of the situation on the ground, and concluded that there was inadequate state protection for battered women in Mexico.4 Findings of this report reveal, inter alia, that: very few shelters are available; admission is not automatic; shelters are poorly guarded and frequently attacked by husbands; the police rarely intervenes in situations of domestic violence, as it is considered a “family affair”; conjugal violence is entrenched in Mexican society, and tolerated by the Mexican authorities; perpetrators are rarely detained or punished. 2.8 On 1 June 2010, the author’s application for judicial review of the H&C decision was denied. A second pre-removal risk assessment was submitted on 25 June 2010. 2.9 The author stresses that due to her limited financial means, she will have to return with her children to the family house in Los Reyes de la Paz, where her ex-husband awaits, if she were deported to Mexico. Even before her arrival to Canada, she and her husband used to live with her parents in that house. If she were forced to be relocated for her safety, she would have no choice but to live in the street with her children, as she has no relative elsewhere in Mexico. For these reasons, the author stresses that she is at serious risk if she were deported to Mexico.5 2.10 Regarding her two minor children, who would be removed with her to Mexico should she be deported, the author stresses that they would greatly suffer if anything happened to her, and that due attention should be given to their best interest. The two children have already witnessed years of violence against their mother, and the additional violence to which she __________________ 4 5 4 “Les femmes au Mexique sont toujours en attente de protection contre la violence”. Field study conducted from 15 to 31 March 2010. She refers to communications No. 6/2005, Yildirim v. Austria, Views adopted on 6 August 2007, and No. 10/2005, N.S.F. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 May 2007.