MB2-02876

MB2-02876

The claim fails because the panel found the claimants not credible, noted significant late and inconsistent allegations, and determined that the claimants did not rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Hungary nor demonstrate they exhausted reasonable domestic remedies; therefore they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB2-02876
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Related Persecution, Ethnic Discrimination, Sexual Assault
Source Language
English

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary was available and effective
  3. 3 Whether the claimants exhausted reasonable domestic remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because the panel found the claimants not credible, noted significant late and inconsistent allegations, and determined that the claimants did not rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Hungary nor demonstrate they exhausted reasonable domestic remedies; therefore they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected