MA5-07477

MA5-07477

The claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the Mexican state could not protect him and did not take reasonable steps to seek available state protection; documentary evidence showed Mexican authorities take measures against corruption and gangs, therefore state protection was available and the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
MA5-07477
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Claudette Menghile; Designated Representative: XXXXX; Panel: Girard Landry; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (subsection 97(1) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Exhaustion of State Remedies, Minor Claimant, Convention Refugee, Need for Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Exhaustion of State Remedies Minor Claimant Convention Refugee Need for Protection

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

Claimant

Me Claudette Menghile

Claimant's Counsel

XXXXX

Designated Representative

Girard Landry

Panel

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (subsection 97(1) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available or whether it was objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek it

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the Mexican state could not protect him and did not take reasonable steps to seek available state protection; documentary evidence showed Mexican authorities take measures against corruption and gangs, therefore state protection was available and the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed