MA7-07334

MA7-07334

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to establish credible, consistent evidence of persecution or a real risk of harm: material contradictions, significant omissions, implausible core factual allegations (including the feasibility of the alleged operation and use of an unpaid civilian informant) and lack of corroboration in the information request led the panel to conclude the claimants did not meet the burden of proof for refugee protection.

Citation
MA7-07334
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse of Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child Claimant (age 17): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child Claimant (age 18): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child Claimant (age 14): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Claudia Aceituno; Tribunal Officer: Linda Doutre; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (first Instance)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Translation/interpretation Issues, Personal Information Form Discrepancies
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Translation/interpretation Issues Personal Information Form Discrepancies

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse of Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child Claimant (age 17)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child Claimant (age 18)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child Claimant (age 14)

Me Claudia Aceituno

Claimant's Counsel

Linda Doutre

Tribunal Officer

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' testimony is credible and consistent
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to establish credible, consistent evidence of persecution or a real risk of harm: material contradictions, significant omissions, implausible core factual allegations (including the feasibility of the alleged operation and use of an unpaid civilian informant) and lack of corroboration in the information request led the panel to conclude the claimants did not meet the burden of proof for refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed