MA7-06068

MA7-06068

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they produced insufficient and unreliable corroborative evidence and did not exhaust reasonable domestic remedies; additionally, even if state protection were deficient, an internal flight alternative within Mexico was realistic and not unduly harsh, therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA7-06068
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.97(1) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (rpd)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Corroboration, Violence Against Women, Death Threats
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Law Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Corroboration Violence Against Women +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.97(1) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of state protection in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) was available and reasonable
  3. 3 Credibility of documentary and medical evidence and failure to corroborate

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they produced insufficient and unreliable corroborative evidence and did not exhaust reasonable domestic remedies; additionally, even if state protection were deficient, an internal flight alternative within Mexico was realistic and not unduly harsh, therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims are dismissed
  • No status as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection granted