MA9-08468

MA9-08468

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants were found not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities in their evidence; because credibility was fatal, they failed to discharge the burden to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution, and the facts did not engage protection under the Convention Against Torture given the persecutors were criminal non‑state actors and state protection/IFA was not shown to be impossible.

Citation
MA9-08468
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Partner / Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following RPD Hearing
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Extortion, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Convention Against Torture, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Particular Social Group Extortion State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution +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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Partner / Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following RPD Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees because of membership in a particular social group (family)
  2. 2 Whether credible evidence establishes a well‑founded fear of persecution by the Zetas (non‑state actors)
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants were found not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities in their evidence; because credibility was fatal, they failed to discharge the burden to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution, and the facts did not engage protection under the Convention Against Torture given the persecutors were criminal non‑state actors and state protection/IFA was not shown to be impossible.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claimants are not 'Convention refugees' under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Claimants are not 'persons in need of protection' under paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act