TA6-15387

TA6-15387

The evidence showed that Mexico City (Federal District) has a legislative framework and implementing measures to address crime and police corruption and there was no clear and convincing evidence that the feared group operated with impunity in the capital or that state protection would be unavailable; therefore the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and the refugee claims were rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TA6-15387
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Son: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Adult Daughter: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Corruption, Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Evidence and Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights State Protection Corruption Persecution Convention Refugee Determination Evidence and Burden of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Son

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Adult Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face persecution by the Zapatista group
  2. 2 Whether Mexican authorities in the Federal District (Mexico City) can provide adequate protection
  3. 3 Whether alleged police corruption negates availability of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence showed that Mexico City (Federal District) has a legislative framework and implementing measures to address crime and police corruption and there was no clear and convincing evidence that the feared group operated with impunity in the capital or that state protection would be unavailable; therefore the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and the refugee claims were rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected