MA6-02569

MA6-02569

Although repeated graffiti and thefts at the claimant's business amount to persecution, the claimant failed to prove that Mexican authorities were unable or unwilling to protect him; therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MA6-02569
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Claim After Hearing (hearing July 19, 2007; Decision October 17, 2007)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation, State Protection, Persecution, Harassment, Mexico
Source Language
English

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Claim After Hearing (hearing July 19, 2007; Decision October 17, 2007)

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's treatment amounts to persecution
  2. 2 Whether the Mexican state was able or willing to protect the claimant
  3. 3 Whether claimant meets definition of Convention refugee (s.96 IRPA) or person in need of protection (s.97 IRPA)

Ratio Decidendi

Although repeated graffiti and thefts at the claimant's business amount to persecution, the claimant failed to prove that Mexican authorities were unable or unwilling to protect him; therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection is rejected