TA8-02878

TA8-02878

Claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground because their fear arose from criminal activity and a personal threat rather than persecution for a protected ground; they also failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on the balance of probabilities because Mexico is not in collapse, has police and anti‑corruption mechanisms and the claimants did not seek reasonably available state protection; therefore claims under ss.96 and 97 IRPA fail.

Citation
TA8-02878
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
All claims rejected (not Convention refugees; not persons in need of protection)
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, State Protection, Nexus, Drug Trafficking, Threats, Best Interests of the Child, Gender Based Claims, Humanitarian and Compassionate
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection State Protection Nexus Drug Trafficking +4 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established nexus to a Convention ground under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of state protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and reasonableness of claimant's fear and actions

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground because their fear arose from criminal activity and a personal threat rather than persecution for a protected ground; they also failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on the balance of probabilities because Mexico is not in collapse, has police and anti‑corruption mechanisms and the claimants did not seek reasonably available state protection; therefore claims under ss.96 and 97 IRPA fail.

Court Disposition

All claims rejected (not Convention refugees; not persons in need of protection)

Orders

  • The claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX is rejected.
  • The claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX is rejected.