MA6-02997

MA6-02997

The claim is rejected because the panel found no evidence that the Mexican state had refused or was unable to provide protection, the claimant filed only one complaint and did not exhaust or pursue state remedies, corroborating evidence was lacking, and a reasonable internal flight alternative within Mexico existed; therefore the claimant failed to discharge the burden under s.97(1)(b).

Citation
MA6-02997
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX; Decision Maker: Me Donal Archambault; Respondent: Refugee Protection Officer
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution of Family Members, Risk to Life/cruel and Unusual Treatment, Burden of Proof, Corruption
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Persecution of Family Members Risk to Life/cruel and Unusual Treatment Burden of Proof Corruption

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

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX

Claimant

Me Donal Archambault

Decision Maker

Refugee Protection Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Mexico was unavailable or would be ineffective
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative within Mexico was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the panel found no evidence that the Mexican state had refused or was unable to provide protection, the claimant filed only one complaint and did not exhaust or pursue state remedies, corroborating evidence was lacking, and a reasonable internal flight alternative within Mexico existed; therefore the claimant failed to discharge the burden under s.97(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected