TA9-15112

TA9-15112

The Board found pervasive credibility defects, implausibilities and material omissions in the claimants' evidence and concluded the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico and failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground; accordingly all claims fail under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA9-15112
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse / Co‑claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Son / Co‑claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter / Co‑claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter's Husband / Co‑claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Claimant(s): Adela Crossley; Respondent (minister): Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Decision After Hearing
Outcome
All refugee protection claims and claims for persons in need of protection are rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Nexus, Gender‑related Persecution, Domestic Violence, Re‑availment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection Nexus +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse / Co‑claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Son / Co‑claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Daughter / Co‑claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Daughter's Husband / Co‑claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Adela Crossley

Counsel for the Claimant(s)

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Respondent (minister)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether claims meet definition of Convention refugee (s.96 IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection (s.97 IRPA)

Ratio Decidendi

The Board found pervasive credibility defects, implausibilities and material omissions in the claimants' evidence and concluded the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico and failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground; accordingly all claims fail under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

All refugee protection claims and claims for persons in need of protection are rejected

Orders

  • The Board rejects the claims of all named claimants; no protection granted