TA6-10474

TA6-10474

The claimants failed to show a nexus to a Convention ground and failed to rebut the presumption that Argentina and Mexico can provide reasonable state protection; delays and re‑availment supported adverse inferences; documentary evidence shows functioning protective institutions and victim assistance programs; therefore neither claimant is a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-10474
Parties
Principal Claimant (argentina): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (common Law Wife, Mexico): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision (reasons and Negative Decision Rendered)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Nexus, Delay, Re‑availment, Gender‑based Claims, Torture, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Sexual Assault, Kidnapping, Trade Union Activity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Nexus Delay Re‑availment +7 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant (argentina)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (common Law Wife, Mexico)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision (reasons and Negative Decision Rendered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 country of reference
  2. 2 delay in making claim
  3. 3 re‑availment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to show a nexus to a Convention ground and failed to rebut the presumption that Argentina and Mexico can provide reasonable state protection; delays and re‑availment supported adverse inferences; documentary evidence shows functioning protective institutions and victim assistance programs; therefore neither claimant is a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee claims dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division (negative decision dated May 14, 2008).