MA9-01396

MA9-01396

The claimants failed to discharge the burden to show that relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable or impossible; credibility findings (late and inconsistent disclosures, unreliable school records) and limited probative value of the psychological report led the panel to conclude on balance of probabilities that a safe internal flight alternative existed (Puebla, Chiapas or Puerto Vallarta), therefore the refugee protection claims under ss.96 and 97 were rejected.

Citation
MA9-01396
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX; Co Claimant (spouse): XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX; Dependent Claimant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX; Dependent Claimant (son): XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX; Dependent Claimant (son): XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Odette Desjardins; Respondent (minister): N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Psychological Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Victim of Criminality, Abduction, Sexual Abuse
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Psychological Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Victim of Criminality +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX

Co Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX

Dependent Claimant (daughter)

XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Dependent Claimant (son)

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX

Dependent Claimant (son)

XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX

Designated Representative

Me Odette Desjardins

Claimant's Counsel

N/A

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative in Mexico was available to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' testimony and documentary evidence were credible
  3. 3 Whether the psychological report was reliable and properly probative

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to discharge the burden to show that relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable or impossible; credibility findings (late and inconsistent disclosures, unreliable school records) and limited probative value of the psychological report led the panel to conclude on balance of probabilities that a safe internal flight alternative existed (Puebla, Chiapas or Puerto Vallarta), therefore the refugee protection claims under ss.96 and 97 were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims denied
  • No protection granted under section 96 and paragraphs 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the IRPA