VB1-03755

VB1-03755

Principal and associated claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection given available institutions and their failure to pursue them beyond frontline police, coupled with credibility findings undermining key allegations; the minor claimant is a Convention refugee because her visible disability combined with Roma status leaves her unable to access state protection and exposes her to persecution.

Citation
VB1-03755
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX; Associated Claimant: XXXXX XXXX XX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant(s): Roger Bhatti; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims of principal and associated claimants rejected; claim of minor claimant accepted as Convention refugee.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Vulnerable Persons/minor, Family Unity, Discrimination Against Roma, Non Refoulement, Medical Treatment Access
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Status State Protection Credibility Assessment Vulnerable Persons/minor Family Unity +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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXX XX

Associated Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Roger Bhatti

Counsel for Claimant(s)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether principal and associated claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the minor claimant is a Convention refugee
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Hungary was adequate and available to claimants

Ratio Decidendi

Principal and associated claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection given available institutions and their failure to pursue them beyond frontline police, coupled with credibility findings undermining key allegations; the minor claimant is a Convention refugee because her visible disability combined with Roma status leaves her unable to access state protection and exposes her to persecution.

Court Disposition

Claims of principal and associated claimants rejected; claim of minor claimant accepted as Convention refugee.

Orders

  • Principal and associated claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection; their claims are rejected.
  • Minor claimant is recognized as a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; her claim is accepted.