Air carrier Pilot reported a lack of accuracy on the 10-9 chart coupled with unlit signage at night led to an inadvertent taxiway incursion at MMQT.

Narrative

While taxiing to the terminal we were instructed to taxi via A and then F to the terminal. There was no indication on the Jeppeson 10-9 of a Taxiway E to the terminal. There were no messages warning that there existed a taxiway not published in station messages or in our flight plan attached messages. We had reviewed the NOTAM's published in Jeppesen and there were no Notams about the taxiway. To add to the potential for turning on to E was the fact that the signage for Taxiway F was unlit and also; not Notam'ed or in any messages. In addition; although Taxiway E was opened and ought to be free of parked aircraft; the airport still had multiple aircraft parked in a manner that there was not a path to the Terminal had we fully turned onto Taxiway E. On the 10-9 the first taxiway on the right was F; in reality after exiting a normal landing on Runway 9 it is now E. At night and given the ambient lighting; E is easy to mistake for a F. I initiated a turn on to E but stopped redirected the aircraft onto A after only 5 degrees of turn. Ambient lighting and lack of reasonable predictable documentation of airport conditions made this an easy place for an error. Survey this airport and issue more accurate documentation.