TA9-15118

TA9-15118

The claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Hungary cannot protect its citizens; they made no credible effort to seek available domestic remedies; documentary evidence shows functioning institutions and specific mechanisms for Roma protection; therefore the presumption of state protection stands and the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-15118
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Female Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX); Minor Claimants: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Ethnic Discrimination, Roma Rights, Burden of Proof, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Refugee Status Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Ethnic Discrimination Roma Rights Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Female Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimants

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether state protection in Hungary is adequate
  2. 2 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether claimants exhausted or reasonably declined to exhaust domestic remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Hungary cannot protect its citizens; they made no credible effort to seek available domestic remedies; documentary evidence shows functioning institutions and specific mechanisms for Roma protection; therefore the presumption of state protection stands and the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the principal claimant, the female claimant and the minor claimants