MA7-01800

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they left Mexico very shortly after filing a complaint, made no sustained efforts to pursue remedies, and the documentary evidence did not show systemic failure of state protection; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation: MA7-01800
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child (represented by Parents): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 13 September 2007
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome: Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics: Abduction, Visas, Corruption, Judicial System, State Protection, Family, Mexico, Negative Decision
Source Language: English

Refugee Protection Immigration Law State Protection Abduction Visas Corruption Judicial System Family +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child (represented by Parents)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
3 Whether state protection in Mexico was available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

Claim for refugee protection rejected