MA8-01472

MA8-01472

The panel concluded the claimants did not establish on a balance of probabilities that they would face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment anywhere in Mexico and that an internal flight alternative was available; therefore they are not persons in need of protection under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA and their refugee claims fail.

Citation
MA8-01472
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Reasons and Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Risk of Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility Convention Refugee +1 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Reasons and Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the treatment amounts to torture under paragraph 97(1)(a) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded the claimants did not establish on a balance of probabilities that they would face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment anywhere in Mexico and that an internal flight alternative was available; therefore they are not persons in need of protection under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA and their refugee claims fail.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are denied; they are not Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.