TA9-24062

TA9-24062

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on the required clear and convincing standard and significant credibility defects undermined the material allegations; documentary country evidence showed Hungary provides adequate protective and remedial mechanisms for Roma, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-24062
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Persecution, Roma Discrimination, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Persecution Roma Discrimination +1 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection in Hungary
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were credible on material aspects of their narrative
  3. 3 Whether claimants face a risk of persecution, torture or cruel treatment if returned

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on the required clear and convincing standard and significant credibility defects undermined the material allegations; documentary country evidence showed Hungary provides adequate protective and remedial mechanisms for Roma, therefore 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 named claimants