TB0-01440

TB0-01440

The panel dismissed the claims because the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing, corroborated evidence, the claimants' credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and omissions, and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Budapest) exists; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-01440
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Ethnic/roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution +2 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection exists in Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

The panel dismissed the claims because the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing, corroborated evidence, the claimants' credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and omissions, and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Budapest) exists; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee claims of the adult and minor claimants
  • Decision and reasons issued May 20, 2015