TA7-09074

TA7-09074

The panel rejected the claimant's testimony as not credible on a balance of probabilities and found she failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide state protection; accordingly she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 or 97(1).

Citation
TA7-09074
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97(1)) / Hearing and Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 or 97(1).
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence, Spousal Rape, Sexual Abuse of Minors, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Persecution by Family Members, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Family Law Human Rights Domestic Violence Spousal Rape Sexual Abuse of Minors State Protection +3 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Dependent Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97(1)) / Hearing and Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under IRPA s.97(1)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's allegations of prolonged domestic and sexual abuse

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's testimony as not credible on a balance of probabilities and found she failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide state protection; accordingly she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 or 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 or 97(1).

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claim; negative decision dated January 27, 2011.