MB1-01293

MB1-01293

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants' evidence was not credible or sufficiently specific, they failed to corroborate key incidents and their narrative was inconsistent and implausible; even if some anti‑Roma violence exists in Hungary, the proven facts did not amount to persecution within the meaning of s.96 IRPA nor did they establish the requisite risk under s.97 IRPA or a lack of state protection.

Citation
MB1-01293
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected; claimants are not refugees under section 96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Persecution, Particular Social Group (roma), Mixed Couple, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Protection From Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Persecution Particular Social Group (roma) Mixed Couple State Protection Credibility Assessment +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether alleged acts against claimants amount to persecution on Convention grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants' evidence was not credible or sufficiently specific, they failed to corroborate key incidents and their narrative was inconsistent and implausible; even if some anti‑Roma violence exists in Hungary, the proven facts did not amount to persecution within the meaning of s.96 IRPA nor did they establish the requisite risk under s.97 IRPA or a lack of state protection.

Court Disposition

Claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected; claimants are not refugees under section 96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are rejected.