TA7-12389

TA7-12389

The claimant's evidence was not found credible that state agents or his employer targeted him; he failed to provide clear and convincing proof that state protection was unavailable and did not exhaust available remedies in a democratic Mexico; a viable internal flight alternative exists (Mexico City); therefore no well-founded fear of persecution and claim is rejected.

Citation
TA7-12389
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Well Founded Fear, Credibility, Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Well Founded Fear Credibility +1 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection is available in Mexico
  3. 3 Whether the claimant exhausted domestic remedies or the burden to seek state protection was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence was not found credible that state agents or his employer targeted him; he failed to provide clear and convincing proof that state protection was unavailable and did not exhaust available remedies in a democratic Mexico; a viable internal flight alternative exists (Mexico City); therefore no well-founded fear of persecution and claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed by Refugee Protection Division