TA9-13250

TA9-13250

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide state protection because he provided only limited police reports, did not follow up or avail himself of further remedies, and produced no clear and convincing evidence of systemic state inability; empirical country evidence showed Mexico has functioning security institutions and ongoing reforms; therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-13250
Parties
Claimant: XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX); Minor Claimant: XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Victim of Criminality, Corruption, Kidnapping, Persecution on Convention Grounds, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Risk of Torture/cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law Administrative Law State Protection Victim of Criminality Corruption +4 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX)

Spouse

XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant faces persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Mexico is inadequate to protect the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant exhausted or reasonably sought domestic state protection before flight

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Mexico can provide state protection because he provided only limited police reports, did not follow up or avail himself of further remedies, and produced no clear and convincing evidence of systemic state inability; empirical country evidence showed Mexico has functioning security institutions and ongoing reforms; therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims