VB2-01289

VB2-01289

On the evidence the panel found the claimants credible on basic facts but failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they faced persecution or that state protection in Hungary would be unavailable or ineffective; accordingly their claims under sections 96 and 97 IRPA were rejected because discrimination and isolated attacks did not establish persecution and the presumption of state protection was not rebutted.

Citation
VB2-01289
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX (Sr.); Associated Claimant: Ms. XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimants: XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimants: XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX (Jr.), and XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nico Breed; Respondent/minister: Minister (Respondent); Panel/tribunal: Rena Dhir; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XX; Designated Representative: XXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Merits Hearing (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection Adequacy, Race Discrimination, Roma Minority Issues, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Adequacy Race Discrimination Roma Minority Issues Credibility Assessment

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (Sr.)

Principal Claimant

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant

XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimants

XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX (Jr.), and XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimants

Nico Breed

Counsel for the Claimant(s)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent/minister

Rena Dhir

Panel/tribunal

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX XX

Designated Representative

XXXXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Merits Hearing (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether alleged harm amounts to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the panel found the claimants credible on basic facts but failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they faced persecution or that state protection in Hungary would be unavailable or ineffective; accordingly their claims under sections 96 and 97 IRPA were rejected because discrimination and isolated attacks did not establish persecution and the presumption of state protection was not rebutted.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Claims dismissed