TA6-03361

TA6-03361

The claimants failed to rebut, on the required standard, the presumption that authorities in the Federal District of Mexico City are capable of providing protection: documentary evidence shows mechanisms and reforms, the claimant made no effort to seek redress domestically, and there are credibility concerns about his identification of perpetrators; therefore the claims are rejected as neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-03361
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Refugee Status, Convention Refugee, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility, Extortion, Corruption
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Refugee Status Convention Refugee Nexus to Convention Grounds Credibility +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants rebutted the presumption that authorities in the Federal District of Mexico City can provide protection
  2. 2 Whether extortion by purported police/associates establishes nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's identification of perpetrators and of his failure to seek state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut, on the required standard, the presumption that authorities in the Federal District of Mexico City are capable of providing protection: documentary evidence shows mechanisms and reforms, the claimant made no effort to seek redress domestically, and there are credibility concerns about his identification of perpetrators; therefore the claims are rejected as neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed; refusal of protection ordered