MA9-02753

MA9-02753

The claimants failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground because the harm was criminal extortion; they did not take all reasonable steps to obtain state protection and presented credibility‑damaging inconsistencies; documentary evidence showed Mexico could provide adequate protection and an internal flight alternative existed; therefore the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA fail.

Citation
MA9-02753
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Child Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Extortion, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Risk of Torture, Non‑refoulement
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Extortion State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility +3 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged extortion constitutes persecution linked to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection was available in Mexico
  3. 3 Whether claimants took all reasonable steps to seek state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground because the harm was criminal extortion; they did not take all reasonable steps to obtain state protection and presented credibility‑damaging inconsistencies; documentary evidence showed Mexico could provide adequate protection and an internal flight alternative existed; therefore the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA fail.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are denied
  • Panel found no risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment warranting protection under IRPA ss.96 or 97(1)