MA6-03071

MA6-03071

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the state of Mexico could not or would not protect him (having not sought local protection), the internal flight alternative within Mexico was reasonable and accessible, and delays and inconsistencies undermined credibility and subjective fear required for refugee or protected person status under ss.96 and 97 of the Act.

Citation
MA6-03071
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Jocelyne Senécal; Decision Maker: Girard Landry
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision on Merits (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Delay in Claiming, Credibility, Persecution, Drug Trafficking, Victim of Crime
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Delay in Claiming +4 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Jocelyne Senécal

Refugee Protection Officer

Girard Landry

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision on Merits (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant was persecuted for a Convention ground or was a victim of ordinary crime
  2. 2 Whether claimant sought and was denied state protection or proved state unwillingness/inability to protect
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative within Mexico was available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the state of Mexico could not or would not protect him (having not sought local protection), the internal flight alternative within Mexico was reasonable and accessible, and delays and inconsistencies undermined credibility and subjective fear required for refugee or protected person status under ss.96 and 97 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied (negative decision)