TB0-13897

TB0-13897

The Panel found the principal claimant gave inconsistent oral evidence and omitted central incidents from his PIF without reasonable explanation, leading to an adverse credibility finding that extended to associated claimants; on the documentary record Hungary is a functioning state with available remedies and evidence of operational protections for Roma, and the discrimination alleged did not, on balance, amount to persecution or an inability of the state to protect; therefore the claims fail under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TB0-13897
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Wife Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Father Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Mother Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Hearing (march 12, 2012) and Decision (september 5, 2012) of the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Persecution, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Anti‑roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Persecution Nexus to Convention Grounds Anti‑roma Discrimination

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Wife Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Father Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Mother Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Hearing (march 12, 2012) and Decision (september 5, 2012) of the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97
  3. 3 Credibility and consistency of the principal claimant's oral and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel found the principal claimant gave inconsistent oral evidence and omitted central incidents from his PIF without reasonable explanation, leading to an adverse credibility finding that extended to associated claimants; on the documentary record Hungary is a functioning state with available remedies and evidence of operational protections for Roma, and the discrimination alleged did not, on balance, amount to persecution or an inability of the state to protect; therefore the claims fail under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee claims of the named claimants are rejected