VA8-04958

VA8-04958

Claimants' feared harm arose from criminal extortion not tied to a Convention ground and they failed to rebut the presumption that the Mexican state could protect them; prior successful use of Mexican institutions and available remedies demonstrate state protection was available, therefore claims as Convention refugees and as persons in need of protection are rejected.

Citation
VA8-04958
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (claims Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Sections 96 and 97) / Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision (oral 20 Dec 2010; Written 05 Jan 2011)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Political Activities, Criminality, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Human Rights Violation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Political Activities +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (claims Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Sections 96 and 97) / Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision (oral 20 Dec 2010; Written 05 Jan 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees (nexus to a Convention ground)
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) (risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants' feared harm arose from criminal extortion not tied to a Convention ground and they failed to rebut the presumption that the Mexican state could protect them; prior successful use of Mexican institutions and available remedies demonstrate state protection was available, therefore claims as Convention refugees and as persons in need of protection are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection