MA9-04771

MA9-04771

Claimants failed to establish that relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable or that they would be pursued and persecuted there; therefore an internal flight alternative exists and the claims for refugee protection and protection from torture/cruel treatment are rejected.

Citation
MA9-04771
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX; Claimant; Designated Representative: XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 97) / Refugee Protection Division Final Decision (merits Hearing)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution by Non State Actors, Drug Trafficking, Corruption, Denunciation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Persecution by Non State Actors Drug Trafficking Corruption Denunciation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX

Claimant; Designated Representative

XXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 97) / Refugee Protection Division Final Decision (merits Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative in Mexico exists
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a serious risk of persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  3. 3 Whether claimants proved they could not safely relocate within Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to establish that relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable or that they would be pursued and persecuted there; therefore an internal flight alternative exists and the claims for refugee protection and protection from torture/cruel treatment are rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims for refugee protection.
  • Claims dismissed; no protection obligations found under ss.96-97 IRPA.