MA4-03895

MA4-03895

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico could protect them with clear and convincing evidence and did not act reasonably in failing to seek available domestic remedies; therefore they do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
MA4-03895
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Member/decision Maker: Me Sylvie Lévesque; Refugee Protection Officer: Lawrence Lesarge; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Corruption, Drug Trafficking, Burden of Proof, Country Documentation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law (drug Trafficking) Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Sylvie Lévesque

Member/decision Maker

Lawrence Lesarge

Refugee Protection Officer

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico was available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico could protect them with clear and convincing evidence and did not act reasonably in failing to seek available domestic remedies; therefore they do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected