MA8-05699

The claimants' evidence was rejected as not credible because of significant inconsistencies and omissions across statements and documents, lack of corroboration, implausible explanations regarding removal of the child, and the failure to seek available protective or legal remedies in Mexico; accordingly the refugee protection claims under s.96 and s.97(1)(b) IRPA are dismissed.

Citation: MA8-05699
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Dependent Claimant (daughter): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 14 February 2012
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome: Refugee protection claims dismissed
Legal Topics: Asylum Claim, Incest/sexual Abuse Allegations, Credibility and Inconsistencies, Parental Custody, State Protection Availability
Source Language: English

Refugee Protection Gender Related Persecution Domestic Violence Sexual Abuse Immigration Law Credibility Assessment Asylum Claim Incest/sexual Abuse Allegations +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dependent Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimants meet the definition of a refugee under section 96 and paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA
2 Whether the allegations of sexual touching/incest by the father are credible
3 Whether effective state protection in Mexico was available or sought

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed