TB1-19162

TB1-19162

Although the principal claimant suffered past assaults amounting to past persecution, the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence; objective country documentation and operational remedies (police, complaints bodies, Equal Treatment Authority, courts and Roma inclusion initiatives) demonstrate that adequate state protection would be reasonably forthcoming, therefore the claimants do not have a well‑founded fear of persecution and are not persons in need of protection, and their refugee claims are rejected.

Citation
TB1-19162
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing Concluded; RPD Decision and Reasons (determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, State Protection, Persecution Vs. Discrimination, Country Conditions (hungary), Credibility Assessment, Best Interests/representation of Minors
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status State Protection Persecution Vs. Discrimination Country Conditions (hungary) +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing Concluded; RPD Decision and Reasons (determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection is available in Hungary
  3. 3 Whether the discrimination and assaults alleged amount to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Although the principal claimant suffered past assaults amounting to past persecution, the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence; objective country documentation and operational remedies (police, complaints bodies, Equal Treatment Authority, courts and Roma inclusion initiatives) demonstrate that adequate state protection would be reasonably forthcoming, therefore the claimants do not have a well‑founded fear of persecution and are not persons in need of protection, and their refugee claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Decision dated November 28, 2017: refugee protection claims dismissed
  • Removal to Hungary not found to expose claimants to risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or danger of torture