MA9-07968

MA9-07968

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment; credibility was undermined by contradictions (notably passport/relocation dates), the documentary country evidence supported the availability of internal relocation, and there was insufficient evidence that the alleged police officers could or would pursue the claimants nationwide.

Citation
MA9-07968
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Extortion by State Agents, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Extortion by State Agents Credibility Assessment Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX

Child

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative within Mexico was available and adequate
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimants in light of documentary inconsistencies

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment; credibility was undermined by contradictions (notably passport/relocation dates), the documentary country evidence supported the availability of internal relocation, and there was insufficient evidence that the alleged police officers could or would pursue the claimants nationwide.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.