MA8-12212

MA8-12212

The panel accepted the principal claimant's fear of her father's drunken violence but found her allegations about threats and attempted sexual assault by masked individuals insufficiently corroborated and undermined; documentary evidence and testimony established that accessible services and protections exist in Mexico (notably Puebla) and the claimant did not prove relocation to Mexico City, Monterrey, Puebla or Veracruz would be objectively unreasonable or unsafe; therefore an internal flight alternative existed and the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 of the Act.

Citation
MA8-12212
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Domestic Violence, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Family Violence Gender Based Persecution Internal Flight Alternative Sexual Abuse Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of principal claimant regarding alleged threats and attempted sexual assault of minor
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative within Mexico was available and reasonable
  3. 3 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee under s.96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted the principal claimant's fear of her father's drunken violence but found her allegations about threats and attempted sexual assault by masked individuals insufficiently corroborated and undermined; documentary evidence and testimony established that accessible services and protections exist in Mexico (notably Puebla) and the claimant did not prove relocation to Mexico City, Monterrey, Puebla or Veracruz would be objectively unreasonable or unsafe; therefore an internal flight alternative existed and the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected