MA5-07231

MA5-07231

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to establish a nexus between the extortion/harassment and a Convention ground and failed to provide credible, consistent evidence that the Mexican state was unable to protect him; accordingly he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Citation
MA5-07231
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (oral Hearing April 25, 2006; Decision May 31, 2006)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; principal claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; same determination applies to spouse and dependent children
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, State Protection Assessment, Credibility Findings, Extortion/harassment
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Human Rights State Protection Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds State Protection Assessment +2 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (oral Hearing April 25, 2006; Decision May 31, 2006)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the alleged extortion by purported corrupt police establishes nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to establish a nexus between the extortion/harassment and a Convention ground and failed to provide credible, consistent evidence that the Mexican state was unable to protect him; accordingly he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; principal claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; same determination applies to spouse and dependent children