TB1-03662

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence: they reported the 2010 assault to police and an investigation was underway, documentary country evidence established Hungary has adequate protection mechanisms and is taking measures to address Roma discrimination; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97.

Citation: TB1-03662
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant (son): XXXXXXXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 3 April 2012
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons)
Outcome: Refugee protection claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics: State Protection, Discrimination (ethnicity), Roma Rights, Burden of Proof
Source Language: English

Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Discrimination (ethnicity) Roma Rights Burden of Proof

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons)

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97
3 Whether state protection in Hungary is available and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.