TB2-10060

TB2-10060

The panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimants experienced discrimination and harassment but not persecution, and that they failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary by clear and convincing evidence; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB2-10060
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Government of Canada / Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Redetermination / Redetermination Hearing Following Federal Court Referral and Judicial Review
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Persecution Vs Discrimination, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Burden of Proof to Rebut Presumption of State Protection, Roma Discrimination, Vulnerability of Claimant
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Persecution Vs Discrimination State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Burden of Proof to Rebut Presumption of State Protection +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

Government of Canada / Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Redetermination / Redetermination Hearing Following Federal Court Referral and Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the discrimination and violence alleged amount to persecution
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary is available and adequate and whether claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimants experienced discrimination and harassment but not persecution, and that they failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary by clear and convincing evidence; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim dismissed