MA6-04188

MA6-04188

The claimants' testimony was found not credible due to evasions, inconsistencies and implausible explanations; documentary evidence and noted available remedies in Mexico undermined the asserted lack of state protection; therefore the claimants failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA6-04188
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (represented): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Hearing Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Law Administrative Law Particular Social Group Domestic Violence Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +1 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (represented)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Hearing Decision

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 the claimant is a member of a particular social group as a victim of domestic violence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' testimony was found not credible due to evasions, inconsistencies and implausible explanations; documentary evidence and noted available remedies in Mexico undermined the asserted lack of state protection; therefore the claimants failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims rejected — claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection