MA6-03281

MA6-03281

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Mexican state protection was unavailable or ineffective (having not sought protection), and an internal flight alternative to other large Mexican cities was available and reasonable; therefore the harm alleged constituted crime rather than persecution and did not meet the standard for refugee protection or need for protection under IRPA.

Citation
MA6-03281
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Credibility and Identity, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Victim of Crime as Non Particular Social Group
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Administrative Law Gender Based Violence State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Availability of state protection in Mexico
  3. 3 Whether claimant exhausted local remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Mexican state protection was unavailable or ineffective (having not sought protection), and an internal flight alternative to other large Mexican cities was available and reasonable; therefore the harm alleged constituted crime rather than persecution and did not meet the standard for refugee protection or need for protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA