MA8-06886

MA8-06886

Tribunal found claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection because the fear was not based on an enumerated ground under s.96, there was no persuasive evidence of state agent involvement or inability of Mexican authorities to provide protection, claimant's credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and implausible assertions, and a viable internal flight alternative in Guadalajara exists.

Citation
MA8-06886
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Philippe Pluviose; Panel Member: Me Edward Aronoff; Tribunal Officer: Jacqueline La; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing Decision
Outcome
Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Unlawful Dismissal, Threats and Kidnapping, Police Complaints
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Labour Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Philippe Pluviose

Claimant's Counsel

Me Edward Aronoff

Panel Member

Jacqueline La

Tribunal Officer

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico was adequate and available

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection because the fear was not based on an enumerated ground under s.96, there was no persuasive evidence of state agent involvement or inability of Mexican authorities to provide protection, claimant's credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and implausible assertions, and a viable internal flight alternative in Guadalajara exists.

Court Disposition

Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim is rejected.