TB2-07501

TB2-07501

The claimants failed to meet the legal burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities, that adequate state protection would not be available in Hungary; country documentation established Hungary as a functioning democratic state with mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse; isolated, undocumented and remote past denials of assistance (1988) and the claimants' ability to return to Hungary undermined the assertion of systemic unavailability of protection; material inconsistencies in the claimants' testimony further eroded credibility; therefore the claims were rejected.

Citation
TB2-07501
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXX; Claimant: X XXXXXXXX XX; Claimant: XX XXXXXXXX XX; Claimant: XX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Merits / Determination
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Burden of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXX

Claimant

X XXXXXXXX XX

Claimant

XX XXXXXXXX XX

Claimant

XX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Merits / Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adequate state protection would be available in Hungary
  2. 2 Credibility of claimants' factual assertions
  3. 3 Whether claimants met the onus to show lack of protection by clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to meet the legal burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities, that adequate state protection would not be available in Hungary; country documentation established Hungary as a functioning democratic state with mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse; isolated, undocumented and remote past denials of assistance (1988) and the claimants' ability to return to Hungary undermined the assertion of systemic unavailability of protection; material inconsistencies in the claimants' testimony further eroded credibility; therefore the claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims dismissed