MA9-03706

MA9-03706

The tribunal concluded that the claimants do not meet the statutory tests because the principal claimant's evidence is materially inconsistent and partially implausible, she failed to establish incapacity or unwillingness of Mexican state authorities to protect her, and a viable internal flight alternative existed; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA9-03706
Parties
Claimant (designated Representative): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant Minor Child: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant Minor Child: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claim denied: claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Act.
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence, Convention Refugee (s.96), Persons in Need of Protection (s.97(1)), State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Contradictions, Child Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Domestic Violence Convention Refugee (s.96) Persons in Need of Protection (s.97(1)) State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Contradictions +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (designated Representative)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant Minor Child

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant Minor Child

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)
  3. 3 Whether the principal claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal concluded that the claimants do not meet the statutory tests because the principal claimant's evidence is materially inconsistent and partially implausible, she failed to establish incapacity or unwillingness of Mexican state authorities to protect her, and a viable internal flight alternative existed; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim denied: claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Act.