TA9-05480

TA9-05480

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection with the clear and convincing evidence required; they did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection domestically and country documentation shows Hungary has functioning institutions and remedies, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-05480
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (final Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Roma Discrimination, Gender Related Persecution, Burden of Proof and Credibility, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Family Based Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Human Rights Anti Discrimination Law State Protection Roma Discrimination Gender Related Persecution Burden of Proof and Credibility Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies +1 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hungary provides adequate state protection to Roma claimants
  2. 2 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether claimants took all reasonable steps to seek protection domestically before claiming refugee status

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection with the clear and convincing evidence required; they did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection domestically and country documentation shows Hungary has functioning institutions and remedies, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA