TB1-12516

TB1-12516

On the evidence the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in Hungary on the required clear and convincing standard: he did not take all reasonable steps to seek domestic protection, produced no reasonable corroboration, and his credibility was undermined; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-12516
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XX; Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (refugee Protection Division) / Decision (reasons and Decision Dated September 18, 2012)
Outcome
Claims dismissed: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Country Conditions, Credibility Assessment, Roma Rights, Police Accountability
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Administrative Law Anti Discrimination Law State Protection Country Conditions Credibility Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (refugee Protection Division) / Decision (reasons and Decision Dated September 18, 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary is adequate
  3. 3 Whether the claimant took all reasonable steps to seek state protection

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in Hungary on the required clear and convincing standard: he did not take all reasonable steps to seek domestic protection, produced no reasonable corroboration, and his credibility was undermined; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims for refugee protection
  • No protection granted and no further orders recorded in decision