TB7-02228

TB7-02228

Claim dismissed because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Mexico—he made no efforts to seek police protection despite ample opportunity, country documentation indicated functioning authorities and improvements, the extortion calls ceased and there was no evidence the caller could or would enforce threats—therefore no balance‑of‑probabilities risk under s.97(1) and no objective basis for persecution under s.96.

Citation
TB7-02228
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision (rpd Reasons)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a person in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1) IRPA and is not a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Extortion, Burden of Proof, Objective Risk of Harm, Convention Refugee Status
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Extortion Burden of Proof Objective Risk of Harm Convention Refugee Status

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision (rpd Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether state protection in Mexico was available to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether claimant established a forward‑looking risk of harm under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Mexico—he made no efforts to seek police protection despite ample opportunity, country documentation indicated functioning authorities and improvements, the extortion calls ceased and there was no evidence the caller could or would enforce threats—therefore no balance‑of‑probabilities risk under s.97(1) and no objective basis for persecution under s.96.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a person in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1) IRPA and is not a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 IRPA

Orders

  • Claim rejected; no protection granted