MB2-05377

MB2-05377

The Tribunal rejected the claims because, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant lacked credibility on determinative matters, the evidence showed a consensual divorce and joint custody with conditions that the claimant did not honour, there was no recent pattern of physical or psychological abuse amounting to persecution, and there was no objective basis to conclude the ex-husband would kill or otherwise persecute her on return to Mexico; available legal remedies and family support further negated a well-founded fear or risk to life, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB2-05377
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision by the Refugee Protection Division (final Determination)
Outcome
Claimants refused: not Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Domestic/partner Violence, Child Custody and Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Return/removal Risk, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Family Law Domestic/partner Violence Child Custody and Relocation Credibility Assessment Return/removal Risk Gender Based Persecution

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision by the Refugee Protection Division (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)
  3. 3 Whether fear of domestic violence constitutes membership of a particular social group

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal rejected the claims because, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant lacked credibility on determinative matters, the evidence showed a consensual divorce and joint custody with conditions that the claimant did not honour, there was no recent pattern of physical or psychological abuse amounting to persecution, and there was no objective basis to conclude the ex-husband would kill or otherwise persecute her on return to Mexico; available legal remedies and family support further negated a well-founded fear or risk to life, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claimants refused: not Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA