TA9-24311

TA9-24311

The claims were rejected because the male claimant's fear was generalized criminality lacking nexus to a Convention ground and therefore did not meet ss.96/97 protection; the female claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence; and the minor US citizen would not face persecution or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return to the USA.

Citation
TA9-24311
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision (written Reasons May 26, 2011; Oral Decision April 5, 2011)
Outcome
claims rejected by Refugee Protection Division
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Generalized Risk, Victim of Criminality, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries, Vendetta, Nexus, Gang Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection +6 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision (written Reasons May 26, 2011; Oral Decision April 5, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the risk feared was generalized criminality under s.97(1)(b)(ii)
  3. 3 Whether claimants failed to seek protection in intervening safe country (USA)

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the male claimant's fear was generalized criminality lacking nexus to a Convention ground and therefore did not meet ss.96/97 protection; the female claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence; and the minor US citizen would not face persecution or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return to the USA.

Court Disposition

claims rejected by Refugee Protection Division

Orders

  • Claims of all three claimants rejected
  • Oral decision delivered April 5, 2011; written reasons delivered May 26, 2011