MA9-00918

MA9-00918

The panel rejected the claims because the claimant was found not credible on essential elements (threats and recruitment by organized crime) and, alternatively, even if credible, the panel concluded that Mexican state institutions could have provided protection; consequently there was no established serious possibility of persecution and s.96/s.97(1) protections do not apply.

Citation
MA9-00918
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX; Husband/co Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX; Daughter/minor Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 & S.97(1)) / Adjudication Merits Hearing and Decision
Outcome
refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Organized Crime, Airport Security, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Organized Crime Airport Security Convention Refugee +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX

Husband/co Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX

Daughter/minor Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 & S.97(1)) / Adjudication Merits Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant and evidentiary sufficiency
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico was available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimant was found not credible on essential elements (threats and recruitment by organized crime) and, alternatively, even if credible, the panel concluded that Mexican state institutions could have provided protection; consequently there was no established serious possibility of persecution and s.96/s.97(1) protections do not apply.

Court Disposition

refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection