TB1-14610

TB1-14610

The claimants lacked credibility due to material inconsistencies and omissions and failed to produce readily obtainable corroborative police and medical documentation; they did not meet the clear and convincing standard to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide effective state protection. Therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 or 97.

Citation
TB1-14610
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Secondary Claimant (common Law Spouse): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Ethnic Persecution (roma), Evidentiary Corroboration, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Ethnic Persecution (roma) Evidentiary Corroboration +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Secondary Claimant (common Law Spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were credible
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary is available and adequate
  3. 3 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants lacked credibility due to material inconsistencies and omissions and failed to produce readily obtainable corroborative police and medical documentation; they did not meet the clear and convincing standard to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide effective state protection. Therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 or 97.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the principal, secondary and minor claimants