TA6-02411

TA6-02411

Because the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Mexico could not protect him, did not exhaust or pursue available domestic remedies beyond an initial police report, and his fear arises from criminality unconnected to Convention grounds, the panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that Mexico can provide adequate protection and therefore rejected his claims under both the Convention and s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA6-02411
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing Before Refugee Protection Division; Final Decision Rejecting Claim
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Protection Elsewhere, Convention Refugee Status, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Police Corruption, Kidnapping and Threats
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law State Protection Protection Elsewhere Convention Refugee Status Exhaustion of Local Remedies +2 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing Before Refugee Protection Division; Final Decision Rejecting Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant rebutted the presumption that Mexico can protect its citizens
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's fear is linked to a Convention ground or is criminality

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Mexico could not protect him, did not exhaust or pursue available domestic remedies beyond an initial police report, and his fear arises from criminality unconnected to Convention grounds, the panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that Mexico can provide adequate protection and therefore rejected his claims under both the Convention and s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.