TA9-08405

TA9-08405

The claims are denied because the principal claimant's evidence was found not credible on central issues and the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence; consequently they did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on the balance of probabilities.

Citation
TA9-08405
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97(1) / Decision
Outcome
Claims denied
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Victim of Criminality, Delay in Claiming, Voluntary Reavailment, Risk of Torture/crd, Convention Refugee Status
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law State Protection Credibility Assessment Victim of Criminality Delay in Claiming +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97(1) / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant's testimony is credible on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are denied because the principal claimant's evidence was found not credible on central issues and the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence; consequently they did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Claims denied

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX, XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are dismissed
  • No finding of Convention refugee status or need for protection under s.97(1) IRPA