TB1-12276

The claimants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that state protection in Hungary is inadequate and their experiences, while discriminatory and harmful, did not reach the level of persecution; therefore their refugee protection claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA fail and are rejected.

Citation: TB1-12276
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Common Law Partner / Claimant: XXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (son): XXX XXXX XXX; Minor Claimant (son): XXXXXXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 4 April 2013
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (merits)
Outcome: Claimants' claims rejected
Legal Topics: State Protection, Persecution, Discrimination, Credibility, Country Conditions
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Persecution Discrimination 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXXX

Common Law Partner / Claimant

XXX XXXX XXX

Minor Claimant (son)

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (son)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

1 Credibility of claimants' account
2 Whether incidents constitute persecution or discrimination
3 Availability and adequacy of state protection in Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claimants' claims rejected

Orders

All claimants are rejected (claims under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA dismissed)