TB3-07786

TB3-07786

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary by clear and convincing evidence; objective country evidence and available domestic remedies (police oversight, IPCB, ombudsman, courts and laws prohibiting discrimination and hate crimes) demonstrate that Hungary is able and willing to provide reasonable protection, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA.

Citation
TB3-07786
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XX; Co Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97 / Hearing and Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Sexual Orientation Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Sexual Orientation Persecution Convention Refugee Determination Persons in Need of Protection

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97 / Hearing and Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary by clear and convincing evidence; objective country evidence and available domestic remedies (police oversight, IPCB, ombudsman, courts and laws prohibiting discrimination and hate crimes) demonstrate that Hungary is able and willing to provide reasonable protection, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA

Orders

  • The claims for refugee protection are rejected.
  • No protection is granted under section 96 or section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.