MB5-01915

MB5-01915

Panel accepted part of claimant's testimony (meeting with Zetas leader) but found on balance of probabilities that claimant failed to establish persecution on a Convention ground or a personal risk of torture, death or cruel treatment and that a viable internal flight alternative (Mexico City) existed; therefore the refugee protection claim was rejected.

Citation
MB5-01915
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Public Safety of Canada
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Non State Actor Persecution, Ministerial Intervention
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Non State Actor Persecution +1 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Public Safety of Canada

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's allegations

Ratio Decidendi

Panel accepted part of claimant's testimony (meeting with Zetas leader) but found on balance of probabilities that claimant failed to establish persecution on a Convention ground or a personal risk of torture, death or cruel treatment and that a viable internal flight alternative (Mexico City) existed; therefore the refugee protection claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.