MA7-08603

MA7-08603

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico could protect them because they did not exhaust available domestic remedies nor produce the complaint or show sufficient, credible steps taken to obtain protection; therefore they do not meet the test for Convention refugee status under s.96 or for protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA.

Citation
MA7-08603
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Son: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Oral Hearing and Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Production of Documents, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Convention Refugee Status, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Production of Documents Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Convention Refugee Status +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Oral Hearing and Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico was unavailable or ineffective

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico could protect them because they did not exhaust available domestic remedies nor produce the complaint or show sufficient, credible steps taken to obtain protection; therefore they do not meet the test for Convention refugee status under s.96 or for protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • The claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under paragraphs 97(1)(a) or (b); their claims are rejected