TA7-08022

TA7-08022

The panel found the claimants did not have an objectively well‑founded fear of persecution: past conflict with mara 18 was remote and criminal/vendetta in motive (not Convention nexus) and insufficient evidence showed present threats; although fear of the ex‑common‑law partner engaged family/domestic abuse nexus, there was insufficient reliable evidence of current risk and adequate state protection in Mexico was likely (medical care for the incapacitated principal and child‑care placement for the minor), therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA7-08022
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (final Adjudication)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Nexus to Convention Grounds, State Protection, Sur Place, Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination Nexus to Convention Grounds State Protection Sur Place +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (final Adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have an objectively well‑founded fear of persecution on Convention grounds
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus between alleged harm and a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants did not have an objectively well‑founded fear of persecution: past conflict with mara 18 was remote and criminal/vendetta in motive (not Convention nexus) and insufficient evidence showed present threats; although fear of the ex‑common‑law partner engaged family/domestic abuse nexus, there was insufficient reliable evidence of current risk and adequate state protection in Mexico was likely (medical care for the incapacitated principal and child‑care placement for the minor), therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX for refugee protection in Canada.