MA9-03663

MA9-03663

The claimants' alleged risk lacked nexus to a Convention ground; they failed to rebut the presumption that Mexican state protection was reasonably available by clear and convincing evidence because they did not seek local authorities; and a reasonable internal flight alternative within Mexico existed, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the Act.

Citation
MA9-03663
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child (age 14): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child (age 9): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution by Family Member, Convention Refugee, Torture Ground
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Persecution by Family Member Convention Refugee Torture Ground

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child (age 14)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child (age 9)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the alleged risk has nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' alleged risk lacked nexus to a Convention ground; they failed to rebut the presumption that Mexican state protection was reasonably available by clear and convincing evidence because they did not seek local authorities; and a reasonable internal flight alternative within Mexico existed, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the Act.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection rejected