Margarita Rios-Farjat
Margarita Rios-Farjat
+52.81.8215.7733

Overview

Margarita Ríos-Farjat, Ph.D., has a long and distinguished career as a jurist and public servant in Mexico, having most recently served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Mexico. She has extensive knowledge and experience in constitutional and tax law, particularly as it relates to the intricate landscape of Mexican legislation and regulatory frameworks, which allow her to provide practical advice in connection with a broad range of matters, including administrative matters, government regulation, compliance issues, tax planning and disputes, financial regulation, arbitration, insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, international judicial cooperation, and complex commercial transactions and disputes. In addition, Ms. Ríos-Farjat has a significant background in human rights and has provided particular guidance to a wide range of organizations, including nonprofit organizations, on matters of transparency, accountability corporate governance, the rule of law and the new judicial structure.

Throughout her career, Ms. Ríos-Farjat has garnered a large number of honors and recognitions within the private sector and in public service. The United Nations office in Mexico highlighted her work as a valuable point of reference for the first commemoration of the International Day of Women Judges, and several universities in Mexico have named chairs in her honor.

During Ms. Ríos-Farjat's tenure as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Mexico, she distinguished herself by her unwavering independence and profound commitment to the advancement of human rights and the rule of law. Several of the opinions and decisions she authored (examples of which can be found below under Representative Experience) contributed to resolving complex legal issues in the areas of civil, commercial, corporate, criminal, insurance and damages law.

Ms. Ríos-Farjat's judicial philosophy emphasized the protection of children, women, individuals with disabilities and victims of gross human rights abuses. Additionally, she supported environmental rights, consumer protection, tax responsibility and the rights of banking service users. At the Mexican Supreme Court, she also served as president of the First Chamber (family law, civil, commercial, criminal and administrative matters) during 2021 and 2022.

As an Associate Justice, Dr. Ríos-Farjat also headed a team responsible for developing the pioneering artificial intelligence (AI) tool known as "Sor Juana," designed to clarify decisions of the Mexican Court and transform the method to communicate in a colloquial manner these rulings to the public. This innovative AI solution was honored with two prestigious national awards from the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT) and National Institute for Access to Information (INAI) and was also internationally recognized by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights. At the Supreme Court, she also served as President of the First Chamber (family, civil, commercial, criminal, and administrative matters) during 2021 and 2022.

Prior to her appointment as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Mexico, Ms. Ríos-Farjat served as head of Mexico's Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria or SAT). During her tenure, she led a comprehensive and decisive strategy to combat tax evasion and promoted a vision to strengthen tax compliance culture, transparency and formalization under a framework of fair and equitable taxation. As a result of these efforts, the SAT achieved significant increases in tax revenue, successfully implemented a differentiated tax regime for the border region and attained higher success rates in tax litigation, particularly in the prosecution of schemes involving simulated transactions. In parallel, Ms. Ríos-Farjat fostered closer engagement with responsible and up-to-date taxpayers, achieving historic levels of efficiency and timeliness in tax refunds. All of this was carried out under a firm commitment to the protection of taxpayers' rights – individuals and companies of all sizes – as an essential pillar for the generation of prosperity in the country.

Before her public service career, Ms. Ríos-Farjat practiced at a global law firm for several years and later led her own boutique practice, developing broad knowledge and experience focused on civil, commercial, tax and administrative matters, as well as in transnational litigation, including cross-border service of process and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. Her professional experience also encompassed highly complex amparo proceedings (constitutional challenges), the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and court judgments, civil liability and damages claims, product liability disputes, collections, complex litigation, commercial insolvency, reorganizations and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as the complex interrelationships between arbitration and litigation.

Furthermore, from the private sector as well and before her public career, Ms. Ríos-Farjat played a pivotal role in establishing the Anti-Corruption Coalition in the State of Nuevo León, which was instrumental in its adoption and implementation of the State Anti-Corruption System (SEA). Her significant contributions as a coalition member were formally recognized by the Federation of Professional Associations of the State.

Ms. Rios-Farjat graduated first in her law school class and, following her graduation, began her professional career at the Third District Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit (Monterrey) within the Federal Judiciary. She has also taken a course on the Mexico Stock Exchange (2003), as well as received a diploma in amparo procedures and constitutional law from the Mexico Supreme Court of Justice (1998). She holds a master's degree in tax law (2008), as well as a doctorate in public policy (2016). Her doctoral dissertation focused on the Supreme Court of Mexico and its decisions regarding telecommunications and their impact on the industry's public policy.

Ms. Ríos-Farjat complements her legal practice at Holland & Knight with academic roles, serving as a professor at the University of Monterrey (UDEM), as a member of the advisory council of the university's law program, and as a lecturer in the doctoral program in Development and National Security at the Mexican Institute of Strategic Studies in National Security and Defense (IMEESDN), among other institutions.

Representative Experience

  • Constitutional Law. Temporary Deployment of the Armed Forces in Public Security [Constitutional Controversy 90/2020]. The ruling upholds the presidential agreement authorizing the use of the armed forces in public security tasks while the National Guard is being consolidated. The measure was deemed neither arbitrary nor disruptive of the constitutional system of checks and balances, as it was duly justified as a temporary and regulated mechanism. 
  • Constitutional Law. Declaration Authorizing Prosecution and Immunity of Public Officials in the Federal Entities [Action of Unconstitutionality 112/2021]. The ruling establishes that local congresses have the authority to determine whether to lift a public official's immunity and authorize criminal prosecution, and such determinations are not subject to challenge within the respective state. However, this does not imply impunity: Federal authorities are not barred from intervening and, if immunity is not lifted, criminal proceedings are not dismissed but merely suspended while the individual remains in office and may be resumed once the individual leaves the position. 
  • Constitutional Law. Failure to Appoint Commissioners of the Federal Economic Competition Commission [Constitutional Controversy 207/2021]. The ruling holds that the president's failure to select and submit to the Senate candidates for their appointment as Commissioners of the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) undermines the normal functioning of the nation, as it prevents a key autonomous constitutional body from operating fully and effectively. 
  • Administrative Law. Municipal Obligation to Update Natural Risk Atlases [Amparo Review 679/2023]. The ruling holds that municipal authorities are required to keep natural risk atlases up to date to protect the life and wellbeing of the population. Although the law does not establish a specific deadline for doing so, the failure to update such atlases undermines disaster prevention efforts and affects fundamental human rights, including health, housing, access to water and environmental wellbeing. This criterion is significant because it transforms an open-ended municipal obligation into a legally enforceable duty by identifying the concrete consequences of non-compliance in the context of disaster prevention.

  • Civil Law. Non-Economic Damages and Flexibility of the Evidentiary Standard [Direct Amparo Review 5505/2017]. This ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it clarifies that claims for non-economic damages may be brought even if the case does not fit squarely within a closed statutory list; what matters is the existence of real harm to a person's dignity or integrity, rather than strict compliance with a formal requirement. This approach prevents cases from being decided on mere technicalities. Second, the precedent establishes that when an accident occurs within a company, the burden lies with the company to prove that it acted properly and complied with applicable safety measures. A mere denial of liability does not suffice; the company bears the burden of demonstrating that it took all necessary steps to prevent the harm, thus ensuring substantive equality between the parties. 
  • Civil Law. Priority of the Legitimate Owner and Registry Certainty [Direct Amparo Review 2060/2021]. The ruling strengthens certainty in real estate transactions by providing that property rights and the legal certainty of legitimate owners who properly record their property in the public registry must prevail. Primary protection is afforded by those who act in accordance with the law and record their property in a timely and proper manner. This precedent is essential for companies and investors in the real estate sector, as it reduces the risk of double-title disputes and reinforces confidence that the public registry will be respected as determinative proof of ownership. 
  • Civil Law. Reopening of Proceedings and Burden of Proof [Direct Amparo Review 5672/2021]. The ruling holds that a civil trial should not be repeated where the rules governing the burden of proof never actually changed. Reopening a proceeding is warranted only when those rules were altered and such alteration adversely impacted one of the parties. Absent that circumstance, repeating the trial would merely confer an unjustified second opportunity on the party that failed to prove its claims. This precedent prevents the reopening of proceedings from being used as a pretext to prolong a dispute that has already been resolved or to obtain an undue procedural advantage. 
  • Civil Law. Transfer of Ownership in Judicial Auctions [General Declaration of Unconstitutionality 5/2023]. The ruling invalidated the law that required a public deed to be executed before taking possession of property acquired through a judicial auction. It clarified that ownership is transferred once the judge approves the auction and the award, not upon execution of the deed, which is merely a subsequent formality. This criterion directly benefits individuals and companies acquiring assets through judicial proceedings, as it allows them to take possession and exercise ownership rights without being subject to notarial delays beyond their control. 
  • Civil Law. Punitive Damages in Claims for Non-Economic Damages [Direct Amparo Review 1057/2023]. The ruling clarifies that, for purposes of awarding punitive damages, it is not necessary for such damages to be expressly pleaded as a separate category from non‑economic damages. Courts must instead assess whether the conduct that caused the harm was sufficiently egregious to justify an enhanced award designed not only to compensate the affected party but also to sanction the wrongdoer. This criterion facilitates access to full reparation for injured parties and is particularly relevant to companies' risk management practices, as conduct deemed serious may result in awards that substantially exceed the direct economic harm.

  • Commercial Law. Simultaneous Notices of Shareholder Meetings [Direct Amparo Proceeding in Review 1426/2020]. The ruling holds that it is not unlawful for a commercial company to publish the first and second notices of a shareholders' meeting simultaneously. What matters is that shareholders are provided with clear and sufficient information and that their participation rights are fully guaranteed. This standard acknowledges business dynamism without weakening the protection of shareholders, as it allows commercial companies to streamline their corporate governance without the risk of challenge, provided that all shareholders' rights to information and voting are respected. 
  • Commercial Law. Procedural Deadlines During the COVID‑19 Pandemic [ADR 4870/2021]. The ruling clarifies that the days during which courts operated behind closed doors amid the COVID‑19 public health emergency must be treated as non‑business days for purposes of calculating procedural deadlines in commercial litigation, as full access to the courts was not available during those periods. This criterion reflects procedural fairness and has a direct impact on companies involved in commercial disputes during the pandemic by preventing procedural deadlines from expiring at times when parties were materially unable to exercise their rights before the courts. 
  • Commercial Law. Retention of Assets and Independence from Attachment [CT 3/2022]. The ruling establishes that, in summary commercial enforcement proceedings, the retention of assets may be ordered independently of attachment. Retention, as a provisional measure, is distinct from attachment, as each serves a different purpose and the law does not prohibit their simultaneous application. This criterion broadens the procedural toolkit available to creditor companies by unequivocally confirming that they may request both measures to protect their claims without one precluding the other. 
  • Commercial Law. Commercial Jurisdiction in Lump‑Sum Construction Contracts [CT 26/2022]. The ruling holds that when a construction company enters into a lump‑sum construction contract as an ordinary course of business, any disputes arising from its breach must be resolved under commercial jurisdiction. This precedent provides legal certainty to companies in the construction and real estate sectors by clearly defining the applicable forum and preventing jurisdictional conflicts that could otherwise delay the resolution of disputes. 
  • Commercial Law. Punitive Damages for Breach of Contract [Direct Amparo Review 4222/2022]. The ruling clarifies that a mere breach of a commercial contract is insufficient to warrant punitive damages. To justify such an award, the aggrieved party must demonstrate harm that goes beyond purely economic loss and transcends the contractual relationship itself. This standard enhances legal certainty for businesses and merchants by limiting their exposure to punitive damages for ordinary breaches of contract and reserving such awards for conduct of a particularly egregious nature. 
  • Commercial Law. Retention of Assets and Evidentiary Standards [Amparo Review 117/2024]. The ruling raises the evidentiary standard for retention of assets in commercial matters. It protects parties against abusive provisional remedies without foreclosing the option for creditors who possess sufficient documentary support to secure collection of their claims. This creates a key balance for companies on both sides of a commercial relationship: debtors for facing unjustified attachments receive greater protection, while creditors seeking to secure a claim have a clear understanding of the standard of proof required of them. 
  • Commercial Law. Settlement Agreements in Insolvency Proceedings [Amparo Review 644/2024]. The ruling holds that the rules governing the approval of creditors' agreements in commercial insolvency proceedings seek to achieve a fair balance. Requiring a specific percentage of approval does not infringe the principle of equality or the internal democratic nature of the proceedings; rather, it provides stability and ensures that dissenting creditors are not left without protection, as they retain legal avenues to challenge the agreement. This is a relevant precedent for creditor companies participating in insolvency proceedings, as it confirms that majority‑rule mechanisms do not extinguish their individual rights of defense.

  • Criminal Law. Statute of Limitations and Protection of Victims Who Timely Filed Complaints [Direct Amparo Review 753/2019]. The ruling prevents legislative amendments from resulting in automatic impunity. It prohibits the retroactive application of criminal provisions that benefit the accused when such application would adversely affect victims who filed their complaints within the statutory limitation period at the time of the events. This precedent ensures that those who have timely sought justice are not left without a legal response as a result of subsequent legislative reforms. 
  • Criminal Law. Bank Secrecy and the Investigative Powers of the Office of the Attorney General [Amparo Review 58/2021]. The ruling establishes that the Office of the Nation's Attorney General (Fiscalía General de la República) may not request banking information for criminal investigation purposes without prior judicial authorization. This criterion protects individuals' right to financial privacy and sets a clear limit on the government's investigative powers: Absent judicial oversight, access to banking data is prohibited. This precedent is particularly significant for companies and individuals subject to criminal investigations, as it ensures that financial and banking information cannot be obtained on a discretionary basis and provides a concrete defense against information requests lacking judicial authorization. 
  • Criminal Law. Gender‑Perspective Adjudication in Criminal Proceedings [Direct Amparo Review 1667/2021]. The ruling requires criminal courts to adjudicate cases using a gender perspective, assessing whether the woman being prosecuted was in a context of violence or subordination at the time of the events. This precedent contributes to the eradication of gender stereotypes in the evaluation of evidence and ensures that judicial decisions are objective, context‑sensitive and genuinely fair. 
  • Criminal Law. Expiration of Proceedings and Statutes of Limitations in the Adversarial Criminal System [Direct Amparo Review 5325/2021]. The ruling clarifies that it is possible, at any stage of criminal proceedings, to argue that a case is time‑barred either because the statutory limitation period for prosecution has elapsed or because the case expired due to the authorities' failure to act within the legally prescribed time limits. This right may be invoked even on appeal or in amparo proceedings; the accused does not forfeit it by failing to raise it at the outset. Judicial authorities must address this argument as a threshold issue, with priority over any other matters. This precedent strengthens legal certainty for individuals subject to criminal prosecution. 
  • Criminal Law. Access to the Prosecutorial Case File by the Person Under Investigation [Amparo Review 347/2022]. The ruling recognizes the right of any suspect to access the prosecutorial case file concerning them, even before being formally summoned to the proceedings, when that individual has already been subjected to intrusive acts by the prosecutorial authority. This criterion strikes a balance within criminal proceedings; it does not undermine the presumption of innocence and allows the suspect to prepare their defense on an equal footing from the earliest stages of the process. 
  • Criminal Law. Comprehensive Reparation for Parents of Feminicide Victims [Direct Amparo Review 5363/2023]. The ruling recognizes that when a girl is the victim of feminicide, her parents are also considered victims and are entitled to comprehensive reparation, which is not limited to financial compensation but also includes psychological support. It further establishes that the government must adopt measures to prevent such acts, raise awareness of the issue and preserve the victim's memory. This is a precedent of significant impact in the struggle against gender‑based violence. 
  • Criminal Law. Abuse by Proxy and the Proportionality of Criminal Sentences [Action of Unconstitutionality 85/2023]. The ruling struck down a criminal provision enacted by a federal entity that imposed automatic and vague sanctions for the offense of abuse by proxy, including the automatic loss of parental authority and inheritance rights. It was held that such sanctions were unconstitutional because they prevented judges from tailoring sentences to the specific circumstances of each case and failed to clearly define which rights would be lost or how long. 
  • Criminal Law. Investigation of Sexual Violence Against Minors [Amparo Review 667/2023]. The ruling establishes that, upon receiving a complaint of sexual violence against minors, the Public Prosecutor's Office must initiate an immediate and particularly diligent investigation. Authorities may not impose additional requirements beyond the complaint itself and must act in accordance with the best interests of the child, ensuring comprehensive care and preventing further harm during the investigation. 
  • Criminal Law. Non‑Applicability of Statutes of Limitations to Sexual Offenses Committed Against Minors [Direct Amparo Proceeding 16/2024]. The ruling recognizes that victims of sexual violence suffered during childhood or adolescence may file a complaint and seek justice at any time, regardless of how much time has elapsed. This criterion is grounded in a reality that the law cannot ignore: Many victims are only able to report such heinous abuse once they reach the emotional conditions necessary to do so.

  • Family Law. Economic Compensation for Domestic Work [Direct Amparo Review 7653/2019]. The ruling brings visibility to and values domestic work that has historically been ignored. It recognizes that caring for the home and the family generates real economic value, and such effort may not place the person who performed it at an economic disadvantage upon divorce. This criterion has a direct impact on gender equality and fairness within family relationships. 
  • Family Law. Parentage Grounded in Human Solidarity [Direct Amparo Proceeding 18/2020]. The ruling allows the law to recognize families as they exist; even in the absence of a biological link or formal adoption, caregiving, upbringing and the assumption of daily parental responsibilities may give rise to a fully recognized legal relationship between parents and children. This criterion protects family relationships built on solidarity and affection, placing the best interests of the child at the center. 
  • Family Law. Non‑Applicability of Statutes of Limitations to the Right to Claim Support [Direct Amparo Review 756/2020]. The ruling establishes that the right to claim support does not expire. Any person who did not receive the financial support of their parents when it was needed may claim it at any point in their life. This criterion reinforces the principle that basic rights of subsistence are not lost merely by the passage of time. 
  • Family Law. International Child-Return Proceedings and Family Violence [Direct Amparo Review 523/2022]. The ruling establishes clear guidelines for the adjudication of international child‑return cases in which allegations of domestic violence arise. Courts must conduct a serious assessment of the risk to the child, avoid prejudgments, hear the child's views whenever possible and rely on psychological evaluations. The objective is to protect children's rights and avoid decisions that would expose them to situations of harm. 
  • Family Law. Economic Compensation for Domestic Work Without Gender Distinction [Direct Amparo Review 4316/2023]. The ruling clarifies that both women and men may seek economic compensation if they devoted themselves primarily to domestic work and family care. What is determinative is not gender, but whether the person can demonstrate that they were left at an economic disadvantage upon the dissolution of the relationship as a result of not having engaged to the same extent in paid employment. 
  • Family Law. Gestational Surrogacy and the Protection of Children [Amparo Review 86/2024]. The ruling protects the rights of children and gestational carriers in cases of gestational surrogacy. It establishes that, even when a surrogacy contract entered into between the gestational carrier and the intended parents is deemed invalid due to exploitative clauses directed at the gestational carrier, this does not negate the events that occurred or their real‑world consequences. Authorities must safeguard the rights of all people involved – particularly those of the child who is born – while also ensuring full reparation for the harm suffered by the gestational carrier. 
  • Family Law. Habitual Residence in International Child-Return Proceedings [Direct Amparo Proceeding 24/2024]. The ruling holds that, in international child‑return cases, the central determination is where the child's everyday life was centered prior to the conflict. To that end, courts must examine concrete factors, including the length of residence, the parents' intention to remain and the child's degree of integration into their environment – such as school, community and social relationships. This criterion allows courts to determine with precision whether an unlawful removal or retention actually occurred.

  • Human Rights Law. Abortion for Minors Who Are Victims of Rape [Amparo Review 45/2018]. The ruling protects extremely vulnerable individuals; minors who become pregnant as a result of sexual violence. It holds that the state may not deny them access to pregnancy termination, as imposing barriers based on prejudice – when the health, dignity and autonomy of a minor who is a sexual violence victim are at stake – constitutes discrimination and a serious human rights violation. 
  • Human Rights Law. Racial Profiling and Limits on Immigration Enforcement Powers [Amparo Review 275/2019]. The ruling curtails racial profiling practices that normalize the detention of individuals based on their appearance or origin. It establishes clear limits on the state's immigration enforcement powers and protects the human dignity of immigrants. This is a fundamental precedent for preventing racism and institutional discrimination. 
  • Human Rights Law. Freedom of Expression and Enhanced Protection of Journalism [Direct Amparo Proceeding 30/2020]. The ruling reinforces the role of journalism in a democratic society. It recognizes that informing, investigating and communicating matters of public interest warrant broad protection, since without effective freedom of expression there can be no accountability or genuine public debate. This is an essential standard for the protection of investigative journalism. 
  • Human Rights Law. Enforced Disappearance and the Right to the Truth [Amparo Review 51/2020]. The ruling requires an active and humane response to cases of enforced disappearance. It promotes genuine searches – rather than merely formal ones – and equips courts with tools to order concrete actions that bring families closer to the truth and justice. This is a precedent that transforms the right to the truth from an abstract principle into tangible and verifiable judicial obligations. 
  • Human Rights Law. Inclusive Access to Sports for Children with Disabilities [Amparo Review 162/2021]. The ruling reinforces the effective inclusion of children with disabilities in sports and recreational activities. It holds that it is not sufficient to create separate or segregated spaces; rather, children with disabilities must be given the opportunity to interact, play and develop alongside others, building social relationships on equal terms. This precedent gives concrete effect to the right of children with disabilities to full and meaningful inclusion. 
  • Human Rights Law. Victims' Right to Reparation [Amparo Review 581/2022]. The ruling holds that Victim Assistance Commissions (Comisiones de Atención a Víctimas) must assess whether indirect victims are entitled to full reparation for the harm suffered, even when such reparation has not been expressly requested. This criterion broadens the scope of protection by recognizing that access to reparation cannot depend on victims being aware of, or affirmatively asserting, their rights on their own initiative. 
  • Human Rights Law. Consultation with Indigenous Peoples Regarding Water Concessions [Amparo Review 709/2023]. The ruling establishes that authorities must conduct a prior, free and informed consultation with indigenous peoples before granting water‑use concessions for industrial purposes that affect their territories and their right to a healthy environment. If such consultation is not carried out in an adequate manner, the affected communities may legitimately seek protection through amparo proceedings. This criterion strengthens the participation of indigenous peoples in decisions impacting the natural resources of their territories and is particularly relevant for industrial and infrastructure projects.

  • Insurance and Consumer Protection. Judicial Oversight of Insurance Companies [ADR 4306/2020]. The ruling is grounded in a practical reality: Consumers are often at a disadvantage when dealing with insurance companies. This precedent promotes a more active judicial role aimed at preventing abuse and ensuring that the compensation promised under insurance contracts is effectively honored. It therefore constitutes a key precedent for the protection of policyholders' rights and one that insurance companies must carefully consider when designing their policies and claim handling procedures. 
  • Insurance and Consumer Protection. General Terms and Conditions of Insurance Contracts [CT 139/2022]. The ruling establishes that, for the general terms and conditions of an insurance policy to be valid, the insurance company must clearly demonstrate that the insured actually knew them. It is insufficient to merely include a standard clause stating that the insured "received and acknowledged" such terms. This precedent protects insured individuals and companies by ensuring that they contract with full information and retain the ability to challenge clauses that were never properly explained. At the same time, it compels insurers to improve how they communicate their terms and conditions, as failure to do so may result in exclusions or coverage limits being deemed unenforceable. 
  • Insurance and Consumer Protection. Commencement of the Claim Period for Third‑Party Beneficiaries [ADR 3148/2023]. The ruling establishes that the limitation period for insurance beneficiaries to file a claim begins to run from the moment they become aware both of the occurrence of the insured event and their status as beneficiaries. Accordingly, if a person failed to file a claim earlier because they were unaware of their beneficiary status, they may do so once such knowledge is acquired. This criterion safeguards individuals who were unwitting beneficiaries and prevents them from losing compensation solely due to their lack of knowledge of the policy's existence. Furthermore, it requires insurance companies to adjust their internal rules, as they may not deny payment based on the passage of time when the beneficiary was legitimately unaware of their right to claim. 
  • Insurance and Consumer Protection. Extended Limitation Period for Death‑Related Claims [ADR 2128/2023]. The ruling holds that compensation for third‑party damages arising from a person's death may be claimed up to five years later, regardless of the type of insurance involved. This is grounded in the understanding that families who lose a loved one require more time and a more flexible approach to seek redress. While it is acknowledged that the insurer did not directly cause the death, it nevertheless contractually undertook the obligation to respond for that damage. This criterion protects families against the practice of insurance companies that allow time to lapse to avoid payment of compensation. It also obliges insurers to maintain active reserves for a significantly longer period than ordinarily planned.

  • Intellectual Property. Copyright: Damages for Unauthorized Use of Musical Works in Commercial Establishments [Direct Amparo Review 4869/2019]. The ruling holds that calculating damages for copyright infringement as a percentage of the sale price of the product or service is valid, reasonable and does not constitute a disproportionate penalty. When it is not possible to ascertain the exact value of the service used without authorization, expert opinion may be sought for quantification purposes. This standard provides clarity and predictability to the calculation of damages in intellectual property matters, which is particularly relevant for the entertainment industry and copyright holders. 
  • Intellectual Property. Industrial Property: Standing to Seek Patent Invalidation [Direct Amparo Review 2381/2023]. The ruling holds that, in order to seek the invalidation of a patent, a mere expression of disagreement is insufficient. The petitioner must clearly and verifiably demonstrate that the patent directly affects them, particularly with respect to the exclusive use of the invention in question. This standard raises the level of rigor in industrial property proceedings and provides certainty to both patent holders and their competitors.

  • International Law. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in México [Amparo Review 14/2021]. The ruling holds that, in order to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment in México, it is sufficient that compliance with the judgment does not contravene Mexican public order. There is no requirement that foreign law be identical to Mexican law; what matters is that the outcome is compatible with the fundamental principles of the Mexican legal system. This is a key precedent for companies with cross-border operations that need to enforce judgments obtained abroad.

  • Procedural Law. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts [Contradiction of Criteria 437/2022]. The ruling clarifies that a judge cannot immediately dismiss a case for lack of territorial jurisdiction upon receiving a claim. Instead, the court must first give the defendant an opportunity to respond. If the defendant answers without contesting jurisdiction, the court's authority is considered tacitly accepted. This precedent underscores respect for the parties' procedural autonomy over rigid formalism and helps avoid delays caused by jurisdictional disputes that neither side wishes to raise.

  • Tax and Criminal Law. The Ministry of Finance as a Victim of Tax Fraud [Contradiction of Criteria 154/2022]. The ruling recognizes the Ministry of Finance as a direct victim of tax fraud and other tax‑related crimes considering its institutional role in safeguarding the public treasury funded by taxpayers' contributions. Accordingly, the ministry is entitled to defend national assets, oversee compliance with tax obligations and file amparo petitions within criminal proceedings involving such offenses. This precedent significantly strengthens the government's position in the prosecution of tax fraud and should be carefully considered by businesses, as it allows the Ministry of Finance to participate actively as a party in tax‑related criminal proceedings, thereby expanding the risk landscape for taxpayers under investigation. 
  • Tax and Corporate Law. Cancellation of the Tax Identification Number of the Surviving Corporation in a Merger and Listings of Fraudulent Invoicing Entities [Direct Amparo Review 706/2024]. The ruling confirms that, in the context of a merger, the cancellation of a company's Tax Identification Number (RFC) is not permissible if the surviving corporation appears on the list of entities that issue invoices for simulated transactions – commonly referred to as factureras – or if there is a lack of consistency between the income reported and the invoices issued. This criterion requires corporations, prior to undertaking a mergers and acquisitions transaction, to assess their status with respect to such lists and the consistency of their tax and financial information. If either of these circumstances are present, the cancellation of the RFC will be denied and the corporate restructuring may be halted, demonstrating that tax noncompliance can jeopardize the closing of large‑scale corporate transactions.

Credentials

Education
  • Tecnológico de Monterrey, Ph.D., Public Policy
  • Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, LL.M., Tax Law
  • Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, J.D., Academic merit, cum laude
Bar Admissions/Licenses
  • Mexico
Memberships
  • Instituto de Contadores Públicos de Nuevo León, Honorary Collaborative Member, 2025-Present
  • Ius Comitiãlis, Editorial Board, 2023-Present
  • Iuris Tantum, Advisory Board, 2022-Present
  • Revista Abogacía, Consejo Editorial, 2023-Present
  • Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Program of Studies on Democracy, Justice and Society, Academic Advisory Board, 2019-Present
  • Phi Delta Phi, Honorary Member, 2015-Present
  • Rotary Club International, Honorary Member, 2019
  • Cómo Vamos Nuevo León, Civil Survey Platform Steering Committee, 2016-2018
  • Mexican Bar Association, Member, 2002-2008; Nuevo León Steering Committee, 2003-2006; Coordinator, Gender Equity Commission, 2003-2006
Honors & Awards
  • Recognition for Professional Career Achievement, Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Mexico, Monterrey Chapter, 2026
  • Recognition for Judicial Career Achievement, City Council of San Pedro Garza García, 2025
  • Recognition for Career and Judicial Independence, Legal Community of the State of Querétaro, 2025
  • Recognition for Judicial Independence, Mexican Bar Association, 2025
  • Recognition as a Member of the Mexican Supreme Court, International Bar Association, 2025
  • Winner of the AI in Government Award (Premio IA en Gobierno): Implemented Projects (Federal Level), Project Title: "Ask Sor Juana: Decisions of the Supreme Court," Mexican Institute of Telecommunications, 2024
  • Awarded at the Transparency Innovation Contest, Category: Federal Institutions, granted by the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection, 2024
  • The 100 Most Powerful Women in Mexico, Forbes Mexico, 2020, 2024
  • The 300 Most Influential Mexican Leaders, Mexican Leaders Organization, 2019, 2022
  • Honorary Doctorate, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, 2021
  • Most Influential Lawyers, Foro Jurídico, 2019
  • Professional Career Award, Bar Association of Nuevo León, 2017
  • Excellence in Professional Performance, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Council, 2014
  • Exemplary Professional Practice, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, 2002
  • Medal of Honor for Achieving First Place in Class, Graduate Studies, Association of Juridical Sciences, 1996

Publications

Speaking Engagements

News