MB0-06861

MB0-06861

The claim was rejected because the claimant's credibility was undermined by inconsistent testimony and lack of diligence in submitting corroborating evidence, he failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico on a balance of probabilities, and a reasonable and accessible internal flight alternative (Mexico City or Guadalajara) existed; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under subsections 96/97(1).

Citation
MB0-06861
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Éric Taillefer; Tribunal Member: Me Michel Byczak; Tribunal Officer: Jacqueline La
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Oral Hearing Decision (reasons Delivered)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection Adequacy, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Subsection 97(1) Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law State Protection Criminal Law Credibility State Protection Adequacy Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Éric Taillefer

Claimant's Counsel

Me Michel Byczak

Tribunal Member

Jacqueline La

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Oral Hearing Decision (reasons Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's testimony was credible
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection was available in Mexico
  3. 3 Whether a reasonable internal flight alternative existed

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant's credibility was undermined by inconsistent testimony and lack of diligence in submitting corroborating evidence, he failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico on a balance of probabilities, and a reasonable and accessible internal flight alternative (Mexico City or Guadalajara) existed; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under subsections 96/97(1).

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX is rejected