TA6-08970

TA6-08970

The Tribunal found the claimant's specific allegations not credible due to his permanent psychotic disorder and inconsistent history, concluded he failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Mexico given documentary evidence of legal protections for sexual minorities, and held that any inadequacy in medical care is excluded by s.97(1)(b)(iv); therefore the claim under ss.96 and 97 IRPA is rejected.

Citation
TA6-08970
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision (reasons and Decision Issued December 15, 2009)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Persecution, State Protection, Sexual Orientation, Mental Illness and Credibility, Section 97 Protection (torture/crsn/torture Risk), Section 97(1)(b)(iv) Medical Care Exclusion, Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Mental Health Law Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Persecution State Protection Sexual Orientation +4 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision (reasons and Decision Issued December 15, 2009)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico is available to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the claimant's specific allegations not credible due to his permanent psychotic disorder and inconsistent history, concluded he failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Mexico given documentary evidence of legal protections for sexual minorities, and held that any inadequacy in medical care is excluded by s.97(1)(b)(iv); therefore the claim under ss.96 and 97 IRPA is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim rejected; no protection granted; removal procedures may follow under applicable immigration processes