TB0-02611

TB0-02611

The panel found the claimants' testimony inconsistent and insufficiently corroborated, concluded they failed to establish past persecution, and determined they did not rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB0-02611
Parties
Claimant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant Minor: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (rpd)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims denied
Legal Topics
Asylum, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Ethnic Discrimination (roma)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Asylum State Protection Credibility Assessment Ethnic Discrimination (roma)

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant testimony
  2. 2 Whether claimants established past persecution
  3. 3 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants' testimony inconsistent and insufficiently corroborated, concluded they failed to establish past persecution, and determined they did not rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims denied

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are denied