TB4-11647

TB4-11647

The panel made adverse credibility findings on key allegations (notably the alleged assault and exaggerated living conditions), found the documentary and testimonial evidence did not establish denial of basic services or state protection, and concluded that while the Roma face discrimination in Slovakia the evidence did not show discrimination rising to persecution; therefore the claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB4-11647
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant (female): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (born 1999): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (born 2006): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (born 2009): XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative (father): XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision on the Merits
Outcome
Claims dismissed: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Cumulative Discrimination, Segregation in Education, Medical Treatment Access
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection Cumulative Discrimination +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (born 1999)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (born 2006)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (born 2009)

XXXX

Designated Representative (father)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel made adverse credibility findings on key allegations (notably the alleged assault and exaggerated living conditions), found the documentary and testimonial evidence did not establish denial of basic services or state protection, and concluded that while the Roma face discrimination in Slovakia the evidence did not show discrimination rising to persecution; therefore the claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection denied
  • No protected person status granted under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA