MA5-03558

MA5-03558

Although the claimant's testimony was generally credible, he failed to produce corroborative documentary evidence and did not show that an internal flight alternative within Mexico would be unreasonable; on the balance of probabilities the panel found no serious possibility of persecution in major Mexican cities and therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA5-03558
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer / Respondent: Refugee Protection Officer Jocelyne Senécal
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Sexual Orientation, Persecution, Torture, Corroboration of Evidence, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Sexual Orientation Persecution Torture Corroboration of Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer Jocelyne Senécal

Refugee Protection Officer / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) within Mexico is reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant's testimony was generally credible, he failed to produce corroborative documentary evidence and did not show that an internal flight alternative within Mexico would be unreasonable; on the balance of probabilities the panel found no serious possibility of persecution in major Mexican cities and therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected