TA9-14690

TA9-14690

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide adequate state protection because the police responded to repeated calls, the principal claimant unreasonably failed to pursue complaints and report threats, and counsel did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA and the recusal application is denied.

Citation
TA9-14690
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division (hearing and Recusal Motion Considered)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Gender Based Persecution, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Recusal Motion, Disclosure, Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Domestic Violence Gender Based Persecution Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Recusal Motion +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division (hearing and Recusal Motion Considered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico is inadequate on clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide adequate state protection because the police responded to repeated calls, the principal claimant unreasonably failed to pursue complaints and report threats, and counsel did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA and the recusal application is denied.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Application for recusal denied
  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the principal and minor claimants