TB0-04085

TB0-04085

On the balance of probabilities the Panel found the claimant failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground and failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence; significant credibility contradictions and the claimant's failure to exhaust reasonable domestic remedies (including witness protection and complaints mechanisms) justified rejection of the refugee claim.

Citation
TB0-04085
Parties
Claimant: Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Credibility, Police Corruption, Vendetta/personal Security, Witness Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Status Credibility Police Corruption Vendetta/personal Security +1 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Availability and adequacy of state protection in Mexico and whether claimant took reasonable steps to access it
  2. 2 Whether claimant's fear is linked to a Convention ground (nexus)
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant given contradictions between PIF and oral testimony

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Panel found the claimant failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground and failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence; significant credibility contradictions and the claimant's failure to exhaust reasonable domestic remedies (including witness protection and complaints mechanisms) justified rejection of the refugee claim.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects claim for refugee protection; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA