MA9-05693

MA9-05693

Although parts of the claimant's account were plausible, the panel found a material contradiction and documentary evidence establishing that identity registers do not provide accessible address information and that relocation to cities such as Guadalajara or Cancun would be viable; therefore the claimants failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or that no internal flight alternative existed, and the refugee claim was rejected.

Citation
MA9-05693
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Persecution Risk, Torture/ill‑treatment Risk, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection International Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Persecution Risk Torture/ill‑treatment Risk Convention Refugee Determination

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under sections 96 and 97(1)(b) of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mexico exists and is available and effective
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' testimony is credible and meets burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

Although parts of the claimant's account were plausible, the panel found a material contradiction and documentary evidence establishing that identity registers do not provide accessible address information and that relocation to cities such as Guadalajara or Cancun would be viable; therefore the claimants failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or that no internal flight alternative existed, and the refugee claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • The refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is rejected
  • The panel determines the claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection