TA6-06834

TA6-06834

The claims fail because the tribunal found critical parts of the account implausible and insufficiently evidenced (notably the absence of reporting or assistance over five years and inconsistencies), and because available evidence established that the Federal District (D.F.) of Mexico City offers adequate state protection and support making an internal flight alternative viable; accordingly, claimants did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or serious harm and the claims were rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA6-06834
Parties
Husband/claimant (brazilian Citizen): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (mexican Citizen): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child Claimant (5): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child Claimant (3): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child Claimant (3): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Heard by Refugee Protection Division / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; negative decision under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Sexual Assault, Witness Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution Credibility Assessment +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Husband/claimant (brazilian Citizen)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (mexican Citizen)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child Claimant (5)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child Claimant (3)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child Claimant (3)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Heard by Refugee Protection Division / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm
  2. 2 Whether internal flight alternative (IFA) to the Federal District (D.F.) is viable
  3. 3 Whether the Mexican state would provide adequate protection in the D.F.

Ratio Decidendi

The claims fail because the tribunal found critical parts of the account implausible and insufficiently evidenced (notably the absence of reporting or assistance over five years and inconsistencies), and because available evidence established that the Federal District (D.F.) of Mexico City offers adequate state protection and support making an internal flight alternative viable; accordingly, claimants did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or serious harm and the claims were rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; negative decision under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Refugee claims of the family rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act