MA8-02847

MA8-02847

The claimants failed to establish that the threats and assaults were persecution on a Convention ground or that the male claimant faced a risk of torture, and they failed to discharge the burden of proving that internal relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable or impossible; because the harm arose from common criminality and viable internal flight alternatives existed, the claims are rejected under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
MA8-02847
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants not recognized as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Victim of Criminality, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Torture (cat), Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Victim of Criminality Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Torture (cat) Burden of Proof

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants were persecuted for membership in a particular social group
  2. 2 Whether the male claimant faced a risk of torture within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists within Mexico such that relocation is reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish that the threats and assaults were persecution on a Convention ground or that the male claimant faced a risk of torture, and they failed to discharge the burden of proving that internal relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable or impossible; because the harm arose from common criminality and viable internal flight alternatives existed, the claims are rejected under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants not recognized as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.