TA7-13397

TA7-13397

Although the principal claimant was found credible and the rape accepted, she did not diligently pursue available state protection and the documentary record shows Mexico has adequate, though imperfect, mechanisms to protect victims of crime; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the recusal motion is denied.

Citation
TA7-13397
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Sexual Violence/rape, Delay in Claiming, Recusal/bias, Credibility, Compelling Reasons Exception
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Gender Based Persecution Sexual Violence/rape Delay in Claiming +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 whether state protection in Mexico was available and effective
  3. 3 whether claimant diligently sought state protection

Ratio Decidendi

Although the principal claimant was found credible and the rape accepted, she did not diligently pursue available state protection and the documentary record shows Mexico has adequate, though imperfect, mechanisms to protect victims of crime; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the recusal motion is denied.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Motion for recusal denied
  • Refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and her two children rejected