MA7-03595

MA7-03595

The panel rejected the claim because the alleged threats were isolated, lacked nexus to a Convention ground, were not shown to pose a probable risk of death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment, the claimants' evidence lacked credibility and corroboration, and an internal flight alternative in Mexico was available; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA7-03595
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (final Decision)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility, Burden of Proof, Harassment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Nexus to Convention Grounds +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Child

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' fear is founded on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the threats and incidents alleged expose the applicants to a real risk of persecution, torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' evidence is credible and sufficiently corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the alleged threats were isolated, lacked nexus to a Convention ground, were not shown to pose a probable risk of death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment, the claimants' evidence lacked credibility and corroboration, and an internal flight alternative in Mexico was available; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection rejected