TA9-09108

TA9-09108

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence because she did not provide corroborative documentation or specific dates of police complaints, did not exhaust reasonable avenues of state protection since leaving the marriage, and country documentation shows Hungary has adequate and evolving mechanisms to protect victims of domestic violence; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-09108
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Credibility and Corroboration, Country Conditions, Forward Looking Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Family Law Criminal Law State Protection Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence +3 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection
  2. 2 Whether the claimant exhausted or took reasonable steps to seek police/state protection
  3. 3 Whether Hungary currently provides adequate protection for victims of domestic violence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence because she did not provide corroborative documentation or specific dates of police complaints, did not exhaust reasonable avenues of state protection since leaving the marriage, and country documentation shows Hungary has adequate and evolving mechanisms to protect victims of domestic violence; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection