MA9-02728

MA9-02728

The claims were dismissed because the harm arose from ordinary criminality without nexus to a Convention ground, the claimants were unlikely to face continuing risk from the perpetrator, they failed to establish that state protection in Mexico was unavailable or ineffective, and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Mexico City) existed.

Citation
MA9-02728
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (rpd Hearing January 28, 2011; Decision February 11, 2011)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Gender Based Violence, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault
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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (rpd Hearing January 28, 2011; Decision February 11, 2011)

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 there is nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were dismissed because the harm arose from ordinary criminality without nexus to a Convention ground, the claimants were unlikely to face continuing risk from the perpetrator, they failed to establish that state protection in Mexico was unavailable or ineffective, and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Mexico City) existed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claims denied
  • Claimants are not convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA