MA6-04224

MA6-04224

The claim is rejected because the tribunal found the claimant's evidence and conduct not credible, concluded she did not exhaust or genuinely seek available state protection in Mexico, and determined a reasonable internal flight alternative existed; on that basis the claimant did not meet the definitions in IRPA...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MA6-04224
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Particular Social Group, Refusal of Refugee Protection
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Persecution State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Particular Social Group +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant's account and evidence
  2. 2 Availability and adequacy of state protection in Mexico
  3. 3 Availability and reasonableness of an internal flight alternative (IFA)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the tribunal found the claimant's evidence and conduct not credible, concluded she did not exhaust or genuinely seek available state protection in Mexico, and determined a reasonable internal flight alternative existed; on that basis the claimant did not meet the definitions in IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed