VA9-00420

VA9-00420

Claim rejected because the claimant failed to establish a Convention-ground nexus and, critically, failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection by clear and convincing evidence; documentary country evidence demonstrated avenues of protection in Mexico sufficient to rebut the claim of personal risk such that he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
VA9-00420
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Abraham J. Garza
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.96 and S.97) / Decision After Hearing (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Persecution and Torture, Country Conditions, Police Corruption and Organized Crime
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Definition State Protection Credibility Assessment Risk of Persecution and Torture +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Abraham J. Garza

Counsel for Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.96 and S.97) / Decision After Hearing (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under the Convention definition
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Claim rejected because the claimant failed to establish a Convention-ground nexus and, critically, failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection by clear and convincing evidence; documentary country evidence demonstrated avenues of protection in Mexico sufficient to rebut the claim of personal risk such that he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.