TA9-23766

TA9-23766

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary by clear and convincing evidence and did not demonstrate that seeking available police or shelter assistance would have been futile; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TA9-23766
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter: XXXX XXXX X; Son in Law: XXXXXXX XXXX XXX; Minor Son: XXXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96, S.97(1)) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Credibility, Burden of Proof, Women Refugee Claimants
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Administrative Law State Protection Domestic Violence Credibility +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX X

Daughter

XXXXXXX XXXX XXX

Son in Law

XXXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96, S.97(1)) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection exists in Hungary
  3. 3 Whether claimants took all reasonable steps to seek protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary by clear and convincing evidence and did not demonstrate that seeking available police or shelter assistance would have been futile; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection (decision dated November 22, 2012)