TA9-02715

TA9-02715

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection prior to leaving (including reporting and allowing investigation), undermining credibility; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-02715
Parties
Claimant and Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Corruption, Child Asylum, Country Conditions, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights Law Domestic Violence State Protection Gender Based Persecution Corruption Child Asylum +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX

Claimant and Designated Representative

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico is adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection prior to leaving (including reporting and allowing investigation), undermining credibility; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the claimants