TB0-12984

TB0-12984

The claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground and failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence; their credibility was undermined by delay and failure to seek protection in the United States; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
TB0-12984
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / RPD Merits Re Determination Following Federal Court Judicial Review Remittal; Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility and Delay, Asylum Shopping, Judicial Review Remittance
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Credibility and Delay Asylum Shopping Judicial Review Remittance

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / RPD Merits Re Determination Following Federal Court Judicial Review Remittal; Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have nexus to a Convention ground for refugee protection
  2. 2 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of effective state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' credibility is undermined by delay, travel to and failure to claim in the United States, and other conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground and failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence; their credibility was undermined by delay and failure to seek protection in the United States; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee claims dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division