TB0-14853

TB0-14853

On the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Hungary could not protect them and failed to take reasonable steps to seek available domestic remedies; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-14853
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (child): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (grandson): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Reasons and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Discrimination (roma), Convention Refugee Definition, Credibility and Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Discrimination (roma) Convention Refugee Definition +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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (child)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (grandson)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Reasons and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Hungary provides adequate state protection to the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Hungary could not protect them and failed to take reasonable steps to seek available domestic remedies; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims are dismissed.