TA5-09382

TA5-09382

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection because they did not make reasonable efforts to seek or exhaust state protection in Mexico; documentary evidence showed Mexico had federal institutions and reform efforts, and therefore the claimants did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment.

Citation
TA5-09382
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Son in Law: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Daughter: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Grandchild: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Claim After Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Harassment, Burden of Proof, Credibility, Judicial Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Harassment Burden of Proof Credibility +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Son in Law

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Daughter

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Grandchild

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Claim After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were persecuted or face a well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Mexico was available and accessible
  3. 3 Whether the claimants made reasonable efforts to seek state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection because they did not make reasonable efforts to seek or exhaust state protection in Mexico; documentary evidence showed Mexico had federal institutions and reform efforts, and therefore the claimants did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims are rejected
  • Removal to Mexico would not subject claimants to risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture