TA4-14056

TA4-14056

The panel afforded greater weight to independent documentary evidence showing functioning investigative and anti‑corruption mechanisms in Mexico and an ongoing investigation of the claimant's reported incident; the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection would be unavailable, therefore the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and the claim failed both as a Convention refugee claim and under section 97 risk grounds.

Citation
TA4-14056
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Refugee Protection Officer
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant determined not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Convention Against Torture, Risk to Life/cruel and Unusual Treatment, Burden of Proof/state Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Criminal Justice (organized Crime) Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Convention Against Torture +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has well-founded fear of persecution as member of particular social group (targeted by organized crime)
  2. 2 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces danger of torture or risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The panel afforded greater weight to independent documentary evidence showing functioning investigative and anti‑corruption mechanisms in Mexico and an ongoing investigation of the claimant's reported incident; the claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection would be unavailable, therefore the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and the claim failed both as a Convention refugee claim and under section 97 risk grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant determined not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed
  • No finding of danger of torture under section 97(1)(a) or risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment under section 97(1)(b)