TB2-02985

TB2-02985

The panel found the claimant's experiences amounted to discrimination but not persecution; documentary evidence established that Hungary provides operational state protection and remedies and that a viable IFA exists in Budapest; the claimant failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection; accordingly the claims were rejected.

Citation
TB2-02985
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXX XXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Written Reasons/decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Access to Education, Police Complaints and Oversight
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment +3 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXX XXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Written Reasons/decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's experiences amount to persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary is operationally adequate
  3. 3 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's experiences amounted to discrimination but not persecution; documentary evidence established that Hungary provides operational state protection and remedies and that a viable IFA exists in Budapest; the claimant failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection; accordingly the claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • RPD decision dated May 2, 2018: refugee claims rejected