TA8-18816

TA8-18816

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities because documentary evidence established Mexico as a functioning democracy with available remedies, the claimant made no attempt to seek police or higher authority protection, and there was no clear and convincing evidence that state protection would have been unavailable; therefore the claims for refugee protection and for persons in need of protection fail.

Citation
TA8-18816
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse/co Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX Xxxxx): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (hearing Adjourned for Written Submissions; Decision Issued)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Political Opinion, Convention Refugee, Nexus, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Political Opinion Convention Refugee Nexus Person in Need of 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse/co Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX Xxxxx)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (hearing Adjourned for Written Submissions; Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants have a well-founded fear linked to imputed political opinion

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities because documentary evidence established Mexico as a functioning democracy with available remedies, the claimant made no attempt to seek police or higher authority protection, and there was no clear and convincing evidence that state protection would have been unavailable; therefore the claims for refugee protection and for persons in need of protection fail.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the claimant, the female claimant and the minor claimant