TB0-12834

TB0-12834

The Board found claimants did not rebut the presumption of state protection because they only reported the assault once without identified perpetrators and had not exhausted reasonable steps to seek protection; the discrimination and incidents did not cumulatively amount to persecution; delay and inconsistent intent on arrival undermined credibility; therefore there was no serious possibility of persecution and claims were rejected.

Citation
TB0-12834
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse / Co Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Both refugee claims rejected
Legal Topics
Delay in Making a Claim, State Protection, Discrimination Vs. Persecution, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Delay in Making a Claim State Protection Discrimination Vs. Persecution Credibility

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Spouse / Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in filing undermines credibility and claim
  2. 2 Whether discrimination and attacks amount to persecution
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Hungary was available and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The Board found claimants did not rebut the presumption of state protection because they only reported the assault once without identified perpetrators and had not exhausted reasonable steps to seek protection; the discrimination and incidents did not cumulatively amount to persecution; delay and inconsistent intent on arrival undermined credibility; therefore there was no serious possibility of persecution and claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Both refugee claims rejected

Orders

  • Both refugee protection claims are rejected; no protection granted