MA6-03431

MA6-03431

The claim was dismissed because the panel found the principal claimant not credible due to significant contradictions and omissions, did not afford evidentiary value to her documentary exhibits, concluded she failed to rebut the presumption of available and adequate state protection in Mexico on clear and convincing evidence, and found that a reasonable and accessible internal flight alternative existed for her and her son.

Citation
MA6-03431
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (son): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (s.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision After Merits Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Domestic Violence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Family Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (s.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision After Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant and evidentiary weight of documents
  2. 2 Availability and adequacy of state protection in Mexico
  3. 3 Existence and reasonableness of internal flight alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the panel found the principal claimant not credible due to significant contradictions and omissions, did not afford evidentiary value to her documentary exhibits, concluded she failed to rebut the presumption of available and adequate state protection in Mexico on clear and convincing evidence, and found that a reasonable and accessible internal flight alternative existed for her and her son.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims MA6-03431 and MA6-03432 denied