MA7-03878

MA7-03878

Claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they could not safely relocate elsewhere in Mexico because they did not identify the persecutors, did not prove the perpetrators' reach beyond their state, and provided no concrete corroborative evidence; consequently an internal flight alternative existed and the claims under ss.96 and 97 are rejected.

Citation
MA7-03878
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Common Law Spouse (dependent): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Daughter (dependent): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Particular Social Group, Persecution, Risk to Life, State Protection, Mexico, Family Based Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Particular Social Group Persecution Risk to Life +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Common Law Spouse (dependent)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Daughter (dependent)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there was no viable internal flight alternative in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they could not safely relocate elsewhere in Mexico because they did not identify the persecutors, did not prove the perpetrators' reach beyond their state, and provided no concrete corroborative evidence; consequently an internal flight alternative existed and the claims under ss.96 and 97 are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.