TA7-06986

TA7-06986

The claims were rejected because the panel concluded that adequate state protection in Mexico is available and the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek further protection domestically prior to seeking refugee protection in Canada, therefore no well-founded fear of persecution or risk under s.97 was established.

Citation
TA7-06986
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refused)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Particular Social Group Women Fearing Gender Related Violence, Child Refugee Claims, Paternity and Child Support, Corruption and Police Misconduct, Abduction Threats
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Criminal Law Gender Violence State Protection Particular Social Group Women Fearing Gender Related Violence +4 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the panel concluded that adequate state protection in Mexico is available and the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek further protection domestically prior to seeking refugee protection in Canada, therefore no well-founded fear of persecution or risk under s.97 was established.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXXX XXXXX and her three minor sons; decision dated June 11, 2009