MA9-06694

The panel found the claimants did not meet their burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection because key allegations lacked credibility or corroboration, certain facts were implausible, and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Mexico City or Merida) existed; therefore the claims under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA were rejected.

Citation: MA9-06694
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 12 October 2011
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 & S.97(1)) / Decision After Hearing
Outcome: Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics: Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Persecution by Non State Actors, Corruption, Domestic Violence, Gang Related Threats, Burden of Proof
Source Language: English

Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Persecution by Non State Actors +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 & S.97(1)) / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on return to Mexico
2 Whether claimants face a risk of torture
3 Whether state protection is available or police are corrupt

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

Refugee protection claims denied; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA