MA6-04025

MA6-04025

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Mexican authorities were incapable of protecting them, they did not pursue available remedies or inform authorities or employer of identifiable threats, and credibility was undermined by material inconsistencies; therefore they are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA6-04025
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / RPD Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Refugee Status Determination, Police Corruption, Failure to Seek Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law State Protection Criminal Law (drug Trafficking) Credibility Refugee Status Determination Police Corruption Failure to Seek Domestic Remedies

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / RPD Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 or persons in need of protection under s.97(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Mexican state was incapable of protecting the claimants
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimants' testimony and documentary inconsistencies

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Mexican authorities were incapable of protecting them, they did not pursue available remedies or inform authorities or employer of identifiable threats, and credibility was undermined by material inconsistencies; therefore they are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection are rejected pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Decision dated September 20, 2007