TB1-12317

TB1-12317

The Panel accepted the claimants' testimonies as sufficiently credible and found that, on the balance of probabilities and in their particular circumstances, the claimants rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection: cumulative discrimination, repeated assaults and the operational failures evidenced in their personal interactions with authorities meant state protection was inadequate for them, so they qualify as Convention refugees under IRPA.

Citation
TB1-12317
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX TB1-12317; Second Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX TB1-12324; Third Claimant: XXXX XXXX TB1-12327; Fourth Claimant (minor): Andrea XXXX TB1-12328; Fifth Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX TB1-12329
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims accepted; claimants found to be Convention refugees
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Credibility, Child Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Ethnic Discrimination (roma) Credibility +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX TB1-12317

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX TB1-12324

Second Claimant

XXXX XXXX TB1-12327

Third Claimant

Andrea XXXX TB1-12328

Fourth Claimant (minor)

XXXX XXXX TB1-12329

Fifth Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants, as Roma, face persecution on the basis of race/ethnicity
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary is adequate in the claimants' circumstances
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimants and weight of documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel accepted the claimants' testimonies as sufficiently credible and found that, on the balance of probabilities and in their particular circumstances, the claimants rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection: cumulative discrimination, repeated assaults and the operational failures evidenced in their personal interactions with authorities meant state protection was inadequate for them, so they qualify as Convention refugees under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims accepted; claimants found to be Convention refugees

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection accepted
  • Refugee protection granted to the five claimants; principal claimant designated representative of minor children