MA5-01977

MA5-01977

The claimant did not prove on the balance required that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or would face torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment, and he failed to rebut the presumption that Mexican authorities could provide protection in major urban areas; the mistreatment alleged amounted to discrimination rather than persecution; therefore his claim as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection is rejected.

Citation
MA5-01977
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent (refugee Protection Officer): Normand Leduc
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (post Hearing)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation, Persecution Vs Discrimination, State Protection, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Sexual Orientation Persecution Vs Discrimination State Protection Credibility Convention Refugee +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Normand Leduc

Respondent (refugee Protection Officer)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (post Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Mexico
  3. 3 Whether the alleged harm amounts to persecution rather than discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not prove on the balance required that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or would face torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment, and he failed to rebut the presumption that Mexican authorities could provide protection in major urban areas; the mistreatment alleged amounted to discrimination rather than persecution; therefore his claim as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.