TA8-21346

TA8-21346

The claimants failed to demonstrate that the discrimination they experienced or feared met the threshold of persecution of basic human rights, and they did not present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA8-21346
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97(1)) / De Novo Hearing; Decision Issued March 15, 2012
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Persecution Vs. Discrimination, State Protection, Roma/ethnicity, Minor Claimant, Convention Refugee Status, Risk of Torture/crtu
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Persecution Vs. Discrimination State Protection Roma/ethnicity Minor Claimant +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97(1)) / De Novo Hearing; Decision Issued March 15, 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discrimination alleged amounts to persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection exists in Hungary for Roma claimants
  3. 3 Whether claimants met burden of proof to rebut presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate that the discrimination they experienced or feared met the threshold of persecution of basic human rights, and they did not present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected.
  • No consideration in this decision of any claim relating to the claimant's ex-husband per referral order.