TB0-00994

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and did not take reasonable steps to seek available remedies in Hungary; therefore state protection would have been reasonably forthcoming and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA.

Citation: TB0-00994
Parties: Claimant: XXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX); Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 3 February 2012
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome: Claims rejected
Legal Topics: State Protection, Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, Roma Minority, Credibility Assessment, Restraining Orders
Source Language: English

Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Criminal Law/public Order Family Law/domestic Violence State Protection Particular Social Group Domestic Violence +3 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 11

Parties

XXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA
2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA
3 Whether there is nexus between feared harm and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA