TA8-25157

TA8-25157

Although the claimants, as Roma, experienced discrimination and some physical attacks, the evidence showed Hungary is a functioning democracy making concrete efforts to address Roma discrimination and providing adequate state protection; the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and their experiences did not cumulatively rise to the level of persecution, therefore their claims for refugee protection were rejected.

Citation
TA8-25157
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Discrimination, Education Discrimination, Healthcare Access, Country Conditions, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Discrimination Education Discrimination Healthcare Access +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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether discrimination and attacks amounted to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimants, as Roma, experienced discrimination and some physical attacks, the evidence showed Hungary is a functioning democracy making concrete efforts to address Roma discrimination and providing adequate state protection; the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and their experiences did not cumulatively rise to the level of persecution, therefore their claims for refugee protection were rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of the four claimants are dismissed