TB0-04330

TB0-04330

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection because they did not adduce clear and convincing evidence of systemic state inability or refusal to protect Roma, and they did not exhaust reasonable domestic remedies; objective country evidence shows Hungary has functioning institutions and mechanisms able and willing to protect, therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-04330
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXX; Minor Child: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (post Hearing)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 96 or section 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Roma Discrimination, Country Conditions, Credibility, Exhaustion of Local Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Anti Discrimination Law State Protection Roma Discrimination 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (post Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary is inadequate
  3. 3 Whether claimants exhausted reasonable steps to seek state protection before fleeing

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection because they did not adduce clear and convincing evidence of systemic state inability or refusal to protect Roma, and they did not exhaust reasonable domestic remedies; objective country evidence shows Hungary has functioning institutions and mechanisms able and willing to protect, therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 96 or section 97(1) of the IRPA.