VA8-03479

VA8-03479

The panel rejected the claims because the alleged threats from Los Zetas lacked nexus to a Convention ground and, on the balance of probabilities, a viable internal flight alternative exists in Mexico City where the claimants could live safely; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
VA8-03479
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimant(s): Shepherd Moss; Designated Representative for Minor: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for the Minister: Nil
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Nexus, State Protection, Corruption
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal/organized Crime Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Nexus +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Shepherd Moss

Counsel for Claimant(s)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative for Minor

Nil

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Mexico City) exists

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the alleged threats from Los Zetas lacked nexus to a Convention ground and, on the balance of probabilities, a viable internal flight alternative exists in Mexico City where the claimants could live safely; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of the named claimants are rejected