TB1-01855

TB1-01855

On the evidence the Board found Budapest is a realistic, attainable and accessible internal flight alternative where state protection and remedies are available; claimants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face persecution, torture, death, or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Budapest; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-01855
Parties
Principal Claimant (female): XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Common Law Partner (male Claimant): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision on Refugee Claim (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Discrimination Against Roma, Persecution, Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Discrimination Against Roma Persecution +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Common Law Partner (male Claimant)

XXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision on Refugee Claim (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Budapest is a viable internal flight alternative for the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the Hungarian state can be expected to provide adequate protection to the claimants
  3. 3 Whether the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution for a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Board found Budapest is a realistic, attainable and accessible internal flight alternative where state protection and remedies are available; claimants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face persecution, torture, death, or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Budapest; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX (decision dated February 16, 2012).