VA6-01643

VA6-01643

The claimants' refugee protection claims were rejected because the Board found, on the balance of probabilities, that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Mexico City and that state protection would be available there; consequently there was no serious possibility of persecution or risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection.

Citation
VA6-01643
Parties
Claimant (female): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (male): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Final Decision Following Hearing (claim Rejected)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Political Opinion, Persecution, Torture, Kidnapping, Convention Refugee Definition
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Political Opinion Persecution Torture +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (female)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Final Decision Following Hearing (claim Rejected)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists (Mexico City)
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available in the internal flight alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' refugee protection claims were rejected because the Board found, on the balance of probabilities, that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Mexico City and that state protection would be available there; consequently there was no serious possibility of persecution or risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection