MA5-01536

MA5-01536

The claimant failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that state protection in Mexico was unavailable or ineffective because he did not pursue available remedies beyond a single complaint and informal approaches; documentary evidence showed Mexico is a functioning democracy taking measures against crime and corruption; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA5-01536
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker: Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Burden of Proof, Corruption, Drug Trafficking, Persecution by Non State Actors, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Mexico
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law State Protection Burden of Proof Corruption Drug Trafficking +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that state protection in Mexico was unavailable or ineffective because he did not pursue available remedies beyond a single complaint and informal approaches; documentary evidence showed Mexico is a functioning democracy taking measures against crime and corruption; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • The claimant, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, is not a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and is not a person in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.