MA8-03274

MA8-03274

The claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they would be persecuted for a Convention ground or that they would face risks under s.97(1) IRPA if returned because viable internal flight alternatives (Mexico City and Merida) existed and there was no credible, concrete evidence they would be traced or their lives jeopardized in those locations.

Citation
MA8-03274
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Credibility Assessment, State Database Traceability, Reasonableness of Relocation
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Internal Flight Alternative Employment Law Corruption Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimed harm engages one of the five Convention grounds
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative to Mexico City or Merida was available and reasonable
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they would be persecuted for a Convention ground or that they would face risks under s.97(1) IRPA if returned because viable internal flight alternatives (Mexico City and Merida) existed and there was no credible, concrete evidence they would be traced or their lives jeopardized in those locations.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • The claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA; refugee protection claims are rejected.