TA9-08875

TA9-08875

The claimant failed to rebut the strong presumption of state protection in the Czech Republic because the country is a functioning democracy with legal and institutional measures addressing hate crimes against Roma, documentary evidence demonstrated serious state efforts, and materially the claimant did not take reasonable steps to pursue or follow up police investigations; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA9-08875
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXXXXXXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division (hearing Held October 28, 2011; Decision January 4, 2012)
Outcome
Claims rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Burden of Proof, Roma Discrimination, Hate Crimes, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Criminal Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Burden of Proof +3 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division (hearing Held October 28, 2011; Decision January 4, 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has well‑founded fear of persecution for membership of Roma community (s.96 IRPA)
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection (s.97 IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether state protection in the Czech Republic is adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the strong presumption of state protection in the Czech Republic because the country is a functioning democracy with legal and institutional measures addressing hate crimes against Roma, documentary evidence demonstrated serious state efforts, and materially the claimant did not take reasonable steps to pursue or follow up police investigations; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the principal claimant, his spouse and minor children (RPD decision dated January 4, 2012).