TA0-15008

TA0-15008

The claimant was found not credible regarding efforts to seek state protection and failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Hungary was unable or unwilling to protect Roma; documentary evidence showed available state and non-state remedies and an internal flight alternative existed (XXXXX and/or Budapest); accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA0-15008
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: A. Martin; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (final Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Ethnic Discrimination, Convention Refugee, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Ethnic Discrimination +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

A. Martin

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees on the basis of Roma ethnicity and membership of a particular social group
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant sought and exhausted state protection and whether the presumption of state protection is rebutted
  3. 3 Whether there is an internal flight alternative within Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was found not credible regarding efforts to seek state protection and failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Hungary was unable or unwilling to protect Roma; documentary evidence showed available state and non-state remedies and an internal flight alternative existed (XXXXX and/or Budapest); accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.