TA6-06404

TA6-06404

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can protect its citizens because their testimony was inconsistent and implausible on salient points, they did not provide clear and convincing evidence of state inability, and they did not reasonably exhaust available local remedies; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA6-06404
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX); Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (hearing 29 May 2007; Decision 3 October 2007)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Political Participation, Credibility and Consistency, Exhaustion of Local Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Political Participation Credibility and Consistency +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX)

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (hearing 29 May 2007; Decision 3 October 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the State of Mexico would provide protection or the presumption of state protection is rebutted
  3. 3 Credibility and consistency of the claimants' testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can protect its citizens because their testimony was inconsistent and implausible on salient points, they did not provide clear and convincing evidence of state inability, and they did not reasonably exhaust available local remedies; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Their claims are rejected