Federal Court


No information to suggest police not making genuine and earnest efforts to investgate

Application for judicial review of denial of refugee claim. Applicants were citizens of Mexico who alleged fear of loan shark, who was associated with criminal organization. Principal applicant had borrowed money from loan shark then could not repay. Applicant alleged that he was beaten by loan shark and attempt was made to kidnap his daughter. Principal applicant and his family moved to different locations in Mexico and made complaints to police. Applicant’s wife, did call police but did not remain to give a report and did not make any further attempts to follow up with police. Applicants fled to Canada and sought refugee protection. Member concluded that applicants had not rebutted presumption of state protection as documentary evidence indicated that issues of corruption and deficiencies were being addressed by the state of Mexico. Member also concluded that there was no information to suggest that police were not making genuine and earnest efforts to investigate claimant’s allegations and apprehend claimant’s perpetrator. Claimant’s choice to leave Mexico may have resulted in investigation being delayed or abandoned, given that he, as victim, was key witness. Member also concluded that as wife called police but did not remain to give report and did not make any further attempts to follow up with police, she had demonstrated only merest attempt to avail herself of protection of police and without further contact police would be helpless in rendering support. Wife’s actions did not support contention of lack of state protection. Application dismissed. Member had made no palpable or overriding error in reaching conclusion that there was adequate state protection. As to whether the applicants made sufficient efforts to avail themselves of state protection, findings of member were not unreasonable.

Lechuga v. Canada

(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (July 20, 2011, F.C., Hughes J., File No. IMM-474-11) 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 817 (6 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?