MA9-08752

MA9-08752

The claimants failed to prove, on the required standard, that the state of Mexico is unable to provide adequate protection and failed to rebut the availability and reasonableness of an internal flight alternative in Mérida or Mexico City; the alleged harm is ordinary criminality without nexus to a protected ground, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA and the claims are rejected.

Citation
MA9-08752
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Refused — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Threats, Organized Crime / Drug Trafficking, Extortion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the state of Mexico can provide adequate protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove, on the required standard, that the state of Mexico is unable to provide adequate protection and failed to rebut the availability and reasonableness of an internal flight alternative in Mérida or Mexico City; the alleged harm is ordinary criminality without nexus to a protected ground, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA and the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Refused — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims rejected
  • Decision dated December 19, 2011