TA9-23060

TA9-23060

The Panel rejected key claimed incidents as not proved due to major omissions from the PIFs which undermined credibility, and found the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence given Hungary's functioning institutions and available remedies; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-23060
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; First Co Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Second Co Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Third Co Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (merits Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected: principal claimant and co-claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility and Omissions in PIF, Persecution Based on Ethnicity, Country Conditions, Burden of Proof, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Credibility and Omissions in PIF Persecution Based on Ethnicity 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

First Co Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Second Co Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Third Co Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (merits Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' evidence is credible given omissions from their PIFs
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Hungary is available and whether the presumption of state protection has been rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected key claimed incidents as not proved due to major omissions from the PIFs which undermined credibility, and found the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence given Hungary's functioning institutions and available remedies; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected: principal claimant and co-claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the principal claimant's claim
  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the co-claimants' and minor claimant's claims as relying on the principal claimant's evidence