MA6-09030

MA6-09030

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants failed to establish a well-founded fear or risk requiring protection: their credibility was undermined by omissions and speculative assertions, they did not pursue or exhaust available remedies, and the evidence did not demonstrate that state protection or internal relocation would be unavailable or unreasonable; therefore the claimants are not persons in need of protection and their refugee claim is denied.

Citation
MA6-09030
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXXand; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Family, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Persecution, Harassment, Abduction, Risk to Life
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Particular Social Group Family State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXXand

Child

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are members of a particular social group (the family)
  2. 2 Whether claimants were persecuted or face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.96 and s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico was available and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants failed to establish a well-founded fear or risk requiring protection: their credibility was undermined by omissions and speculative assertions, they did not pursue or exhaust available remedies, and the evidence did not demonstrate that state protection or internal relocation would be unavailable or unreasonable; therefore the claimants are not persons in need of protection and their refugee claim is denied.

Court Disposition

claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection is rejected
  • No protection granted