TA5-06337

TA5-06337

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide protection because they did not make reasonable efforts to seek or follow up on state protection and the documentary evidence shows Mexican authorities undertaking serious efforts to address criminality and corruption; therefore there is no objective basis for a well-founded fear and the claims are rejected.

Citation
TA5-06337
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Brother: XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX; Female Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Daughter: XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX; Other Daughter: (a.k.a. XXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX); Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: n/a
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (rpd)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, Police Corruption, Criminality, Political Intimidation, Withdrawal of Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear Police Corruption Criminality +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX

Brother

XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Female Claimant

XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX

Daughter

(a.k.a. XXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX)

Other Daughter

XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant (minor)

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Designated Representative

n/a

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether state protection was available and whether claimants made reasonable efforts to seek it
  3. 3 Whether claimants rebutted presumption that Mexico can protect its citizens

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide protection because they did not make reasonable efforts to seek or follow up on state protection and the documentary evidence shows Mexican authorities undertaking serious efforts to address criminality and corruption; therefore there is no objective basis for a well-founded fear and the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims rejected by Refugee Protection Division; removal to Mexico would not subject claimants to risk under ss.96-97 IRPA