TA9-21308

TA9-21308

The claimant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution or that state protection in Hungary is inadequate because he did not provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection, omitted material facts undermining credibility, and available domestic remedies and institutional measures indicate Hungary can provide reasonable protection; therefore the claim is rejected.

Citation
TA9-21308
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Credibility and Omissions, Roma/ethnic Discrimination, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Vs Discrimination Burden of Proof Credibility and Omissions +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether discrimination and attacks amount to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution or that state protection in Hungary is inadequate because he did not provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection, omitted material facts undermining credibility, and available domestic remedies and institutional measures indicate Hungary can provide reasonable protection; therefore the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA