TB6-02215

TB6-02215

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection for Hungary by clear and convincing evidence; credibility deficiencies (material omissions) and lack of reliable evidence that police would be unwilling or unable to provide protection, together with inadmissibility of the proffered new evidence, disposed of the claim on the merits.

Citation
TB6-02215
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); RAD Review of RPD Decision, No New Hearing Requested
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Convention Refugee Status, Admissibility of New Evidence, Roma Discrimination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Credibility Convention Refugee Status Admissibility of New Evidence +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); RAD Review of RPD Decision, No New Hearing Requested

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants rebutted presumption of state protection for returning Roma to Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection for Hungary by clear and convincing evidence; credibility deficiencies (material omissions) and lack of reliable evidence that police would be unwilling or unable to provide protection, together with inadmissibility of the proffered new evidence, disposed of the claim on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision dated January 21, 2016
  • Appeal dismissed