MA4-03356

MA4-03356

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexican authorities could protect her because she made no effort to seek state protection and provided insufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard that the state was unable or unwilling to protect her; therefore she has no well-founded fear of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment and her claim is rejected.

Citation
MA4-03356
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Myriam Harbec; Adjudicator: Me Guy Lebel; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision on Refugee Protection Claim
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Sexual Orientation, Persecution, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Risk of Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Convention Refugee Determination, Burden and Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law State Protection Sexual Orientation Persecution Exhaustion of Local Remedies +3 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Myriam Harbec

Claimant's Counsel

Me Guy Lebel

Adjudicator

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision on Refugee Protection Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether the claimant exhausted domestic remedies or sought state protection
  3. 3 Whether the Mexican state is able and willing to protect the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexican authorities could protect her because she made no effort to seek state protection and provided insufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard that the state was unable or unwilling to protect her; therefore she has no well-founded fear of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment and her claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection