TA8-00157

TA8-00157

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can protect its citizens because he did not provide clear and convincing evidence of state inability or unwillingness to protect and did not reasonably exhaust available domestic remedies; consequently there is not a serious possibility of persecution and the refugee protection claim is rejected.

Citation
TA8-00157
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child (dual U.s. Mexico Citizen): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Ss.96 97 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision (reasons and Decision Issued by Refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claimants' refugee claims rejected; principal claimant not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; spouse's claim rejected as derivative; child's claim rejected for lack of evidence.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility, Corruption, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Credibility Corruption +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child (dual U.s. Mexico Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Ss.96 97 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision (reasons and Decision Issued by Refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's actions give rise to nexus to a Convention ground (perceived political opinion)
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Mexico was available, effective and reasonably accessible
  3. 3 Whether claimant exhausted domestic remedies or provided clear and convincing evidence of state inability to protect

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can protect its citizens because he did not provide clear and convincing evidence of state inability or unwillingness to protect and did not reasonably exhaust available domestic remedies; consequently there is not a serious possibility of persecution and the refugee protection claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claimants' refugee claims rejected; principal claimant not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; spouse's claim rejected as derivative; child's claim rejected for lack of evidence.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed
  • No protection or relief granted by the Refugee Protection Division