TA7-07117

TA7-07117

Claimants failed to establish a nexus between the persecution feared and a Convention ground and failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence; they did not exhaust reasonable state remedies; accordingly the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA are rejected.

Citation
TA7-07117
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant (child): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant (child): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) Claims / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Victim of Criminality, Nexus, Exhaustion of State Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Victim of Criminality Nexus Exhaustion of State Remedies

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant (child)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) Claims / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether fear of persecution is linked to a Convention ground (nexus)

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to establish a nexus between the persecution feared and a Convention ground and failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence; they did not exhaust reasonable state remedies; accordingly the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims for refugee protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA