TA9-05848

TA9-05848

The claimants' evidence was found not credible and materially inconsistent and they failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that Hungary cannot protect them; therefore they did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection and are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-05848
Parties
Male Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Female Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXXXXXXXX; Counsel for the Claimant(s): Robert I Blanshay; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Persecution, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Forced Sterilization, Police Remedies, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Credibility Persecution Ethnic Discrimination (roma) Forced Sterilization +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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Male Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXX

Female Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXX

Designated Representative

Robert I Blanshay

Counsel for the Claimant(s)

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants face persecution on a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Hungary is adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' evidence was found not credible and materially inconsistent and they failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that Hungary cannot protect them; therefore they did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection and are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refusal of refugee protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act