TA6-07553

TA6-07553

The panel found claimants did not rebut the presumption of state protection because they provided no clear and convincing evidence that Mexico was unable or unwilling to protect them and they failed to seek available state remedies (did not report threats or seek protection); therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-07553
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (child): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (child): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (sister): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision (negative Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Political Opinion, Persecution, Torture, Risk to Life, Corruption, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Credibility, Negative Decision
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Political Opinion Persecution Torture +5 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (child)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (child)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (sister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision (negative Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of state protection for Mexico was rebutted
  2. 2 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of perceived political opinion
  3. 3 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found claimants did not rebut the presumption of state protection because they provided no clear and convincing evidence that Mexico was unable or unwilling to protect them and they failed to seek available state remedies (did not report threats or seek protection); therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Immigration and Refugee Protection claims dismissed by RPD (negative decision) dated September 21, 2009
  • Immigration Officer's notes excluded from consideration