TB1-06836

TB1-06836

On the evidence the panel concluded Hungary has functioning institutions and has taken operational measures to protect Roma; the claimants did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the state could not protect them nor show they took all reasonable steps to seek domestic protection; therefore the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and the claims failed under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-06836
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected — claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Discrimination (roma), Burden of Proof, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Asylum Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Discrimination (roma) Burden of Proof Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hungary provides adequate state protection to Roma
  2. 2 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether the claimants took all reasonable steps to seek domestic protection before claiming refugee status

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the panel concluded Hungary has functioning institutions and has taken operational measures to protect Roma; the claimants did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the state could not protect them nor show they took all reasonable steps to seek domestic protection; therefore the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and the claims failed under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects claims TB1-06836 and TB1-06837 (Decision dated January 23, 2013)