MA9-07061

MA9-07061

Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a nexus to a Convention ground or that he was personally targeted rather than a victim of generalized criminality aimed at occupying his rented home; he also failed to discharge the burden to show that relocation within Mexico (Yucatán or Zacatecas) would be unreasonable or pose a risk to life; therefore his claim and those of his family fail under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
MA9-07061
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Son: XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Daughter (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Nexus, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Criminal Organization
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Nexus Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Criminal Organization

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Son

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX

Daughter (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was personally targeted by persecutors
  3. 3 Whether state agents were agents of persecution or state protection was unavailable

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a nexus to a Convention ground or that he was personally targeted rather than a victim of generalized criminality aimed at occupying his rented home; he also failed to discharge the burden to show that relocation within Mexico (Yucatán or Zacatecas) would be unreasonable or pose a risk to life; therefore his claim and those of his family fail under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXX XXXXX, his spouse, their son and their daughter are rejected.