TA9-09901

TA9-09901

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence, did not take all reasonable steps to seek domestic protection, and their credibility was undermined by omissions and inconsistencies; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-09901
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refused)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Violence, Sexual Assault, Credibility, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Risk of Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights State Protection Gender Based Violence Sexual Assault Credibility Exhaustion of Local Remedies +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Adequacy of state protection in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico with clear and convincing evidence, did not take all reasonable steps to seek domestic protection, and their credibility was undermined by omissions and inconsistencies; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA