TB7-04441

TB7-04441

The appellants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide protection with clear and convincing evidence, including by not pursuing or establishing inadequate state protection after assaults and not demonstrating systemic denial of benefits, therefore the RPD's finding that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB7-04441
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Merits, No New Evidence or Hearing Requested
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a).
Legal Topics
State Protection, Burden of Proof, Credibility Findings, Gender and Child Guidelines, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Burden of Proof Credibility Findings Gender and Child Guidelines Standard of Review

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Merits, No New Evidence or Hearing Requested

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its state protection analysis
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to apply gender and child refugee guidelines appropriately
  3. 3 Whether the appellants rebutted the presumption that Hungary can protect its nationals

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide protection with clear and convincing evidence, including by not pursuing or establishing inadequate state protection after assaults and not demonstrating systemic denial of benefits, therefore the RPD's finding that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the RPD decision dated February 16, 2017.
  • Appeal dismissed.