MA8-15947

MA8-15947

The claims were rejected because the claimants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that no viable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico; they provided no reliable evidence that the aggressor could find them nationwide or that relocation (e.g., to Mexico City) would be objectively unreasonable, and there was no evidence of state involvement amounting to torture, so they are not refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MA8-15947
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision After Hearing (august 31, 2010)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Credibility and Burden of Proof, Torture State Involvement
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Particular Social Group Gender Based Persecution Credibility and Burden of Proof Torture State Involvement

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision After Hearing (august 31, 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the claimants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that no viable internal flight alternative existed in Mexico; they provided no reliable evidence that the aggressor could find them nationwide or that relocation (e.g., to Mexico City) would be objectively unreasonable, and there was no evidence of state involvement amounting to torture, so they are not refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.