MA8-08242

Panel found claimants not credible on key factual allegations (omissions, contradictions, delayed documents, failure to corroborate), determined state protection was available and not rebutted on the preponderance/clear and convincing standard, and concluded an internal flight alternative was reasonable; therefore claimants do not meet definition of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation: MA8-08242
Parties: Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 3 February 2009
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection (irpa) / Oral Decision at Hearing
Outcome: Claim denied; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics: Refugee Protection Division, Oral Decision, Domestic Violence, Disclosure, Delay, Denial, Rules, Credibility, Contradictions, Omissions, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender (male/female), Negative Decision, Mexico
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Refugee Protection Division Oral Decision Domestic Violence Disclosure Delay Denial +9 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Oral Decision at Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Credibility of claimants
2 Availability of state protection
3 Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

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