TA6-02394

TA6-02394

Because Mexico is a functioning democracy making substantial, demonstrable efforts to provide state protection and the claimants produced no clear and convincing evidence that state protection was unavailable or that they had exhausted reasonable remedies, their fear was not well founded and they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-02394
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Father of Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for the Claimants: HART A. KAMINKER; Counsel for the Minister: Counsel for the Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Corruption, Harassment, Police Misconduct, Well Founded Fear, Burden of Proof, Convention Refugee, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Human Rights State Protection Corruption Harassment Police Misconduct Well Founded Fear +3 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Father of Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child

HART A. KAMINKER

Counsel for the Claimants

Counsel for the Minister

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Mexico
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection was available in Mexico
  3. 3 Whether the claimants sought or exhausted local remedies before fleeing

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mexico is a functioning democracy making substantial, demonstrable efforts to provide state protection and the claimants produced no clear and convincing evidence that state protection was unavailable or that they had exhausted reasonable remedies, their fear was not well founded and they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claims rejected