MA8-17070

MA8-17070

The panel found that the presumption of state protection was not rebutted because the claimant did not make every reasonable effort to obtain protection or pursue higher remedies despite having actionable information; combined with conduct inconsistent with asserted fear, this failure meant the claimant did not meet the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of torture, death, or cruel and unusual treatment, and therefore the claim must be rejected.

Citation
MA8-17070
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Mother in Law: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Daughter: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Daughter: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Persecution, Extortion, Denunciation, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries, Conduct Incompatible With Fear, Surrogate/international Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Persecution Extortion +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Mother in Law

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Daughter

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under subsection 97(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Mexican state was unwilling or unable to provide protection
  3. 3 Whether the claimant made every reasonable effort to seek state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that the presumption of state protection was not rebutted because the claimant did not make every reasonable effort to obtain protection or pursue higher remedies despite having actionable information; combined with conduct inconsistent with asserted fear, this failure meant the claimant did not meet the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of torture, death, or cruel and unusual treatment, and therefore the claim must be rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected