TB1-18722

TB1-18722

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence, and thus on the balance of probabilities is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-18722
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Common Law Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Roma Discrimination, Credibility and Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Roma Discrimination Credibility and Evidence Convention Refugee Determination +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Common Law Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Child

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hungary provides adequate state protection to Roma claimants
  2. 2 Whether the claimant took all reasonable steps to seek state protection domestically
  3. 3 Whether the claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence, and thus on the balance of probabilities is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed by Refugee Protection Division
  • Claimants not found to meet definitions under s.96 or s.97(1) IRPA