TB0-07360

TB0-07360

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence; objective country documentation and the claimant's own evidence show Hungary is a functioning democracy with police, judiciary and remedies able and willing to investigate, prosecute and provide protection, so the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB0-07360
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: A. Tom Leousis; Counsel for Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (represented)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Final Decision (rejection)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Determination, Domestic Violence, Discrimination (race/ethnicity)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Convention Refugee Determination Domestic Violence Discrimination (race/ethnicity)

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

A. Tom Leousis

Counsel for Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (represented)

Counsel for Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Final Decision (rejection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary is inadequate
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces risk of persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence; objective country documentation and the claimant's own evidence show Hungary is a functioning democracy with police, judiciary and remedies able and willing to investigate, prosecute and provide protection, so the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection