MA8-02985

MA8-02985

Claimants failed to establish persecution for a Convention ground and did not meet the clear and convincing evidence threshold to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico; combined with material credibility and plausibility issues, the Tribunal concludes they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA8-02985
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Carlos Hoyos-Tello; Panel: Me Edward Aronoff; Tribunal Officer: Donna Ramacieri; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection — Convention Refugee Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (post Hearing)
Outcome
Claims dismissed — claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Nexus to Protected Grounds, Credibility and Plausibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Victim of Criminality, Contradictions in Evidence
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Nexus to Protected Grounds Credibility and Plausibility Internal Flight Alternative +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Carlos Hoyos-Tello

Claimant's Counsel

Me Edward Aronoff

Panel

Donna Ramacieri

Tribunal Officer

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection — Convention Refugee Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (post Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants' evidence is credible and plausible

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to establish persecution for a Convention ground and did not meet the clear and convincing evidence threshold to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Mexico; combined with material credibility and plausibility issues, the Tribunal concludes they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed — claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed