TA6-09538

TA6-09538

The panel rejected the claimants' testimony as not credible on material elements, found no nexus to a Convention ground, and concluded that, even if the 2006 incident occurred, adequate state protection exists in Mexico; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA6-09538
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Son (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Son: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Harassment, Port of Entry Interviews, Inconsistencies, Peremptory Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Harassment Port of Entry Interviews +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Son (minor)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' fear is objectively well‑founded under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground for refugee protection under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimants' testimony as not credible on material elements, found no nexus to a Convention ground, and concluded that, even if the 2006 incident occurred, adequate state protection exists in Mexico; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA