TA8-08697

TA8-08697

On the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence, had credibility deficiencies (including implausible link to cartel and the male claimant's return/re‑availment), and a reasonable IFA (Mexico City) existed; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA8-08697
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (adult Male): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (section 96 and 97, Irpa) / Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Reavailment, Persecution of Family Members, Victim of Criminality, Demeanour of RPO, Children
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Reavailment Persecution of Family Members +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (adult Male)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (section 96 and 97, Irpa) / Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether claimants are credible
  2. 2 whether state protection in Mexico was available and adequate
  3. 3 whether an internal flight alternative (Mexico City) existed and was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence, had credibility deficiencies (including implausible link to cartel and the male claimant's return/re‑availment), and a reasonable IFA (Mexico City) existed; therefore they are not 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 Division rejects the refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX