TA8-12093

TA8-12093

The claimants' testimony was found not credible on central matters and they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection in Mexico was inadequate or that they had taken all reasonable steps to seek it; therefore they did not meet the burden to establish Convention refugee status or need for protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA and their claim was rejected.

Citation
TA8-12093
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility and Corroboration, Domestic Violence, Burden of Proof, Convention Refugee Determination, Country Conditions, Onus to Exhaust Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Violence Law State Protection Credibility and Corroboration Domestic Violence +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the claimants credible?
  2. 2 Have the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence?
  3. 3 Do the facts, if believed, amount to persecution for a Convention reason?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' testimony was found not credible on central matters and they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection in Mexico was inadequate or that they had taken all reasonable steps to seek it; therefore they did not meet the burden to establish Convention refugee status or need for protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA and their claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimants' refugee claims (TA8-12093; TA8-12094).
  • No protection obligations under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA were found to apply to bar removal to Mexico.