MA9-06824

MA9-06824

The claims were rejected because the claimants failed to provide credible, corroborating evidence, their testimony was inconsistent and implausible, and they did not demonstrate that the Mexican state was unwilling or unable to provide adequate protection; therefore they did not meet the required standard for refugee protection or for persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA9-06824
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Gisela G. Barraza; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Decision Maker: Youssoupha Diop; Tribunal Officer: Myra Shuster
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision on the Merits
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum Claim, Membership of a Particular Social Group, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Gang Violence, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Asylum Claim Membership of a Particular Social Group State Protection Credibility Assessment Gang Violence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Gisela G. Barraza

Claimant's Counsel

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Youssoupha Diop

Decision Maker

Myra Shuster

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the state of Mexico is unwilling or unable to provide adequate protection
  3. 3 Credibility and reliability of the claimants' testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the claimants failed to provide credible, corroborating evidence, their testimony was inconsistent and implausible, and they did not demonstrate that the Mexican state was unwilling or unable to provide adequate protection; therefore they did not meet the required standard for refugee protection or for persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed

Orders

  • The claimants are not Convention refugees
  • The claimants are not persons in need of protection