VA6-01614

VA6-01614

The panel accepted the principal claimant as credible, relied on a Mexican amparo court decision that effectively exonerated her of the historical criminal allegation, found no evidentiary basis to form a belief that Article 1F exclusion applied, concluded state protection and an internal flight alternative were unavailable because persecutors were powerful political actors with ongoing reach, and therefore allowed the claimants as Convention refugees and persons in need of protection.

Citation
VA6-01614
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Associated Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Oral Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed; claimants found to be Convention refugees and persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Exclusion (article 1 F), State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Delay and Credibility, Political Opinion, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Exclusion (article 1 F) State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Delay and Credibility +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Associated Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Oral Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants should be excluded under Article 1F(f) of the Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted the principal claimant as credible, relied on a Mexican amparo court decision that effectively exonerated her of the historical criminal allegation, found no evidentiary basis to form a belief that Article 1F exclusion applied, concluded state protection and an internal flight alternative were unavailable because persecutors were powerful political actors with ongoing reach, and therefore allowed the claimants as Convention refugees and persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; claimants found to be Convention refugees and persons in need of protection