MA9-06503

MA9-06503

Claim dismissed because the panel found the claimant's allegations not credible and, independently, that a viable internal flight alternative existed (Veracruz or Guanajuato) such that there was no objectively established risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1)(b); additionally the facts did not engage section 96 as the targeting was criminality for profit without nexus to a Convention ground.

Citation
MA9-06503
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected by Refugee Protection Division
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Subsection 97(1) Risk Assessment, Section 96 Convention Refugee Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Internal Flight Alternative State Protection +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's allegations are credible
  2. 2 Whether the facts engage section 96 (Convention grounds)
  3. 3 Whether there is a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment under subsection 97(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because the panel found the claimant's allegations not credible and, independently, that a viable internal flight alternative existed (Veracruz or Guanajuato) such that there was no objectively established risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1)(b); additionally the facts did not engage section 96 as the targeting was criminality for profit without nexus to a Convention ground.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected by Refugee Protection Division

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected