TA8-08705

TA8-08705

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico because they had access to and received state responses (police intervention, a protection/custody order and a ministerial investigation), documentary evidence shows legal frameworks and institutions exist in Mexico to protect women, and the claimants did not provide clear, convincing and probative evidence of systemic inability of the state to protect them; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA8-08705
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant / Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (older Minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimants: Alyssa Manning; Counsel for the Minister: Nil; Panel / Decision Maker: B. Volpentesta; Tribunal Officer: J. Ross
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision (determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Gender Related Persecution, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Family Law/domestic Violence Gender Related Persecution State Protection Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination +1 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant / Designated Representative

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (older Minor)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Alyssa Manning

Counsel for Claimants

Nil

Counsel for the Minister

B. Volpentesta

Panel / Decision Maker

J. Ross

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision (determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico was adequate and available

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico because they had access to and received state responses (police intervention, a protection/custody order and a ministerial investigation), documentary evidence shows legal frameworks and institutions exist in Mexico to protect women, and the claimants did not provide clear, convincing and probative evidence of systemic inability of the state to protect them; therefore they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims are rejected.
  • The claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.