TA6-13204

TA6-13204

The panel concluded the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because Hungary is a functioning democracy with legal remedies and state efforts to address domestic violence; the claimant did not seek assistance from authorities despite having time and opportunity to do so, and documentary evidence did not demonstrate state unwillingness or inability to protect; therefore she is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-13204
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Post Hearing Final Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Particular Social Group, Torture, Person in Need of Protection, Psychological Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Domestic Violence Particular Social Group Torture Person in Need of Protection +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Post Hearing Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee based on membership in a particular social group (woman subjected to domestic violence)
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection was available in Hungary or the presumption of state protection is rebutted
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 of IRPA (risk of torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because Hungary is a functioning democracy with legal remedies and state efforts to address domestic violence; the claimant did not seek assistance from authorities despite having time and opportunity to do so, and documentary evidence did not demonstrate state unwillingness or inability to protect; therefore she is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied by Refugee Protection Division; no protection granted