TA9-21621

TA9-21621

The claimants' core allegations were undermined by significant, material inconsistencies and omissions for which no reasonable explanation was accepted, and the claimants failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that Hungarian state protection is inadequate; therefore the claims are rejected and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-21621
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Secondary Claimant (common Law Spouse): XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Reasons/decision (refugee Protection Division Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Asylum Procedure, Personal Information Form Inconsistencies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Credibility Assessment Ethnic Discrimination (roma) Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Secondary Claimant (common Law Spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Reasons/decision (refugee Protection Division Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are credible as to the alleged incident(s) involving members of the Hungarian Guard and related facts
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection in Hungary on a clear and convincing standard
  3. 3 Whether the claimants faced persecution or have a well-founded fear on account of Romani ethnicity

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' core allegations were undermined by significant, material inconsistencies and omissions for which no reasonable explanation was accepted, and the claimants failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that Hungarian state protection is inadequate; therefore the claims are rejected and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the principal and secondary claimants