TA6-07394

TA6-07394

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; reliable documentary evidence established legislative remedies and protection mechanisms (particularly in the Federal District) and therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees and do not satisfy s.97 risk thresholds.

Citation
TA6-07394
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (son): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Common Law Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Ex Husband (alleged Perpetrator): XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimant: D. Shelly; Panel Member / Decision Maker: V. Rangan; Counsel for the Minister: NIL; Refugee Protection Officer: NIL
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing Concluded and Final Decision Issued (claim Rejected)
Outcome
Claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 of IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Gender Based Persecution, Credibility, Nexus, Minor Claimant, Convention Refugee Determination, Section 97 Risk Assessment, Mexico
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Domestic Violence Gender Based Persecution Credibility Nexus +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (son)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Common Law Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Ex Husband (alleged Perpetrator)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

D. Shelly

Counsel for Claimant

V. Rangan

Panel Member / Decision Maker

NIL

Counsel for the Minister

NIL

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing Concluded and Final Decision Issued (claim Rejected)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether state protection in Mexico is available and whether presumption of state protection is rebutted
  2. 2 Whether the male claimant has nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' testimony and reliance on documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; reliable documentary evidence established legislative remedies and protection mechanisms (particularly in the Federal District) and therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees and do not satisfy s.97 risk thresholds.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97 of IRPA.

Orders

  • Decision dated August 3, 2007: refugee claims denied; no protection granted