TA9-21623

TA9-21623

On the balance of probabilities the Board found claimants did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk to life/cruel treatment on return because a viable IFA exists in Debrecen, state protection mechanisms in Hungary are available and not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, and claimants failed to take reasonable steps to seek domestic protection; therefore claims are rejected.

Citation
TA9-21623
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Common Law Spouse: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Son: XXXXXXXXXXX; Sister: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Discrimination, Country Conditions, Roma Rights, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Discrimination Country Conditions +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Common Law Spouse

XXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Son

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Sister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants meet the definition of a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimants face persecution on the basis of race/ethnicity (Roma)
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (Debrecen) is viable

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Board found claimants did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk to life/cruel treatment on return because a viable IFA exists in Debrecen, state protection mechanisms in Hungary are available and not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, and claimants failed to take reasonable steps to seek domestic protection; therefore claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the named claimants
  • Decision dated March 26, 2012