TA8-13503

TA8-13503

The Board found the claimant's fear arose from criminal conduct (victim of crime) and thus lacked nexus to a Convention ground; significant omissions and vagueness undermined credibility; the presumption of state protection was not rebutted because Mexico has functioning protection mechanisms including SIEDO and access to protection in Mexico City would be reasonable (IFA), therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
TA8-13503
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Delay in Making Claim, Credibility, Witness Threats
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Nexus to Convention Grounds Delay in Making Claim Credibility +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's fear is linked to a Convention ground (nexus)
  2. 2 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of effective state protection
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (Mexico City) is viable

Ratio Decidendi

The Board found the claimant's fear arose from criminal conduct (victim of crime) and thus lacked nexus to a Convention ground; significant omissions and vagueness undermined credibility; the presumption of state protection was not rebutted because Mexico has functioning protection mechanisms including SIEDO and access to protection in Mexico City would be reasonable (IFA), therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

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