TA5-12796

TA5-12796

The panel found, on the balance of documentary evidence and testimony, that Mexico provides adequate state protection and the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and failed to exhaust available domestic remedies; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk on return and the refugee claims fail.

Citation
TA5-12796
Parties
Husband: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Corruption, Kidnapping, Gender Based Violence, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law State Protection Corruption Kidnapping Gender Based Violence +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Husband

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether state protection in Mexico is adequate
  2. 2 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether claimant exhausted domestic remedies available in a democratic state

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found, on the balance of documentary evidence and testimony, that Mexico provides adequate state protection and the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and failed to exhaust available domestic remedies; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk on return and the refugee claims fail.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims for refugee protection