TA8-07557

TA8-07557

The panel concluded that Mexico is a functioning state with available mechanisms to address police misconduct and protect citizens; the claimants did not take reasonable steps to seek state protection and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; the female claimant's evidence about ongoing targeting was found not credible and insufficiently corroborated; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA8-07557
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse / Designated Representative for Minors: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (son): XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (stepson): XXXXX XXXXX; Adjudicator (member, Rpd): Louise Paquette-Neville; Tribunal Officer: J. Ross
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision Following Hearing (hearing Date April 8, 2009; Decision Date April 30, 2009)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Torture/cruel and Unusual Treatment, Police Corruption, Corroboration, Personal Information Form Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Torture/cruel and Unusual Treatment Police Corruption +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse / Designated Representative for Minors

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (son)

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (stepson)

Louise Paquette-Neville

Adjudicator (member, Rpd)

J. Ross

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision Following Hearing (hearing Date April 8, 2009; Decision Date April 30, 2009)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection is available in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded that Mexico is a functioning state with available mechanisms to address police misconduct and protect citizens; the claimants did not take reasonable steps to seek state protection and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; the female claimant's evidence about ongoing targeting was found not credible and insufficiently corroborated; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection are rejected