HMLV v MCI 2010 FC 709

The Court set aside an IFA finding noting: 28 The only issue decided by the Board in the case at bar was the existence of the IFA in San Pedro Sula. The Board correctly identified the IFA to be determinative of both a claim for protected status pursuant to section 96 as well as section 97 of the Act. To the extent that the Board uses its conclusion that a risk of maras gang violence is a generalized risk to refute the applicant's assertion that she would be persecuted in the proposed IFA, the reasoning in Pineda, supra, illustrates such assumed generalization to be faulty. This is not to say that the applicant faces a particular risk of violence which is equivalent to a positive determination on the first branch of the IFA. Rather, it undermines one of the premises the Board uses to get to its ultimate conclusion that there is no serious possibility of persecution in San Pedro Sula by the maras.