MA9-00242

MA9-00242

The claimants failed to prove, on the applicable standards, that they face persecution for a Convention ground or that effective state protection in Mexico is unavailable because they did not identify agents of harm, did not demonstrate why those agents would continue to harass them or influence police, and did not establish lack of state protection by clear and convincing evidence; therefore the claims fail under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MA9-00242
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Panel Member (adjudicator): Me Haig Basmajian; Tribunal Officer: Myriam De Bailleul; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Persecution, Family Based Persecution, Generalized Risk, Children/minors
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Me Haig Basmajian

Panel Member (adjudicator)

Myriam De Bailleul

Tribunal Officer

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection in Mexico is available

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove, on the applicable standards, that they face persecution for a Convention ground or that effective state protection in Mexico is unavailable because they did not identify agents of harm, did not demonstrate why those agents would continue to harass them or influence police, and did not establish lack of state protection by clear and convincing evidence; therefore the claims fail under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX and her two minor children XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX are rejected