MA8-12456

MA8-12456

The claimant failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Hungarian state protection was unavailable or ineffective; her single police report was recorded and there exist statutory, judicial and NGO remedies for Roma in Hungary; alleged discrimination did not amount to persecution; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA8-12456
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Adjudicator: Me Mélanie Raymond; Tribunal Officer: Annie Lemaine
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection Adequacy, Membership of a Particular Social Group (roma), Burden and Standard of Proof
Source Language
English

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Mélanie Raymond

Adjudicator

Annie Lemaine

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Hungary is adequate and accessible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Hungarian state protection was unavailable or ineffective; her single police report was recorded and there exist statutory, judicial and NGO remedies for Roma in Hungary; alleged discrimination did not amount to persecution; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected