MA8-08387

MA8-08387

The claim was dismissed because the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence were not credible or corroborated, he failed to rebut the presumption that the Mexican state could protect him by clear and convincing evidence and failed to exhaust domestic protection options, and an internal flight alternative within Mexico was available; therefore the refugee protection claim under sections 96/97 IRPA is rejected.

Citation
MA8-08387
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Manuel Antonio Centurion; Tribunal/adjudicator: Sylvie Roy; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility and Plausibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Particular Social Group, Sexual Orientation, Evidence and Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility and Plausibility State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Particular Social Group +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Manuel Antonio Centurion

Claimant's Counsel

Sylvie Roy

Tribunal/adjudicator

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a member of a particular social group (homosexuals)
  2. 2 Credibility and plausibility of the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence were not credible or corroborated, he failed to rebut the presumption that the Mexican state could protect him by clear and convincing evidence and failed to exhaust domestic protection options, and an internal flight alternative within Mexico was available; therefore the refugee protection claim under sections 96/97 IRPA is rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.