TB6-05798

TB6-05798

The RAD found the RPD erred in law and fact by misapplying the state protection test and failing to apply controlling Federal Court jurisprudence; the evidence (including country reports and accepted testimony) demonstrates pervasive discrimination against Roma in Hungary rising to persecution and that state protection is not reasonably available; the Appellants were credible; accordingly under IRPA s.111(1)(b) the RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
TB6-05798
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Child: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Substitution)
Outcome
RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Discrimination Against Roma, Convention Refugee Status, Credibility Findings, Burden of Proof, Domestic Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Discrimination Against Roma Convention Refugee Status +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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Child

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Substitution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discrimination against Roma rises to the level of persecution
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary was reasonably available to the Appellants
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in law by applying the wrong test for state protection and ignoring binding Federal Court jurisprudence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in law and fact by misapplying the state protection test and failing to apply controlling Federal Court jurisprudence; the evidence (including country reports and accepted testimony) demonstrates pervasive discrimination against Roma in Hungary rising to persecution and that state protection is not reasonably available; the Appellants were credible; accordingly under IRPA s.111(1)(b) the RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b)
  • RPD determination set aside and substituted: Appellants declared Convention refugees