VA9-02563

VA9-02563

On the evidence and country documentation the Panel found Mexico to be a functioning democracy making genuine efforts to address domestic and gender-based violence; the claimants failed to present clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be forthcoming and did not take reasonable steps to seek protection in Mexico, therefore the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and the claims under sections 96 and 97 fail.

Citation
VA9-02563
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Violence, Domestic Violence, Particular Social Group, Credibility, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Human Rights State Protection Gender Based Violence Domestic Violence Particular Social Group Credibility +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of state protection for Mexican nationals has been rebutted with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether the claimants took reasonable steps to seek state protection in Mexico given the country context

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and country documentation the Panel found Mexico to be a functioning democracy making genuine efforts to address domestic and gender-based violence; the claimants failed to present clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be forthcoming and did not take reasonable steps to seek protection in Mexico, therefore the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and the claims under sections 96 and 97 fail.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of the principal claimant and dependent claimants are rejected