MA6-06149

MA6-06149

The panel rejected the claims because material contradictions and significant omissions in the claimants' testimony undermined credibility; where complaints were made the police responded and provided protection deemed adequate; and realistic internal flight alternatives within Mexico existed, therefore the claimants failed to establish they were Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA6-06149
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Son Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Daughter Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Grandson Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Granddaughter Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97(1) / Decision After Hearing (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Sexual Abuse, Particular Social Group, Victim of Criminality, Persecution by Family Member
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Family Law Human Rights Credibility State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Sexual Abuse +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Son Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Daughter Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Grandson Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Granddaughter Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97(1) / Decision After Hearing (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of witnesses and contradictions in testimony
  2. 2 Availability and adequacy of state protection in Mexico
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists and is reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because material contradictions and significant omissions in the claimants' testimony undermined credibility; where complaints were made the police responded and provided protection deemed adequate; and realistic internal flight alternatives within Mexico existed, therefore the claimants failed to establish they were Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected