MA8-01588

The panel found the claimants' account implausible and concluded they failed to seek available state protection in Mexico; because Mexico was shown to have mechanisms to address corruption and the claimants did not exhaust reasonable remedies, the refugee claim was rejected.

Citation: MA8-01588
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Son: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Son: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 26 April 2010
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome: refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics: Refugee Protection, State Protection Assessment, Plausibility, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Victim of Criminality, Medical Evidence
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law State Protection Corruption Criminality Family Law Refugee Protection State Protection Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Son

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimants qualify for refugee protection under s.96 and s.97(1)(b) of IRPA
2 Whether the claimants' story is plausible
3 Whether state protection in Mexico was available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

refugee protection claim rejected