TB1-15357

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TB1-15357 TB1-15383 TB1-15402 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing July 30, 2012 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing Toronto, Ontario Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision August 13, 2012 Date de la décision Panel David Lowe Tribunal Counsel for the Claimant(s) Yaqian (Grace) Wang Barrister & Solicitor Conseil(s) du / de la / des demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Tribunal Officer N/A Agent(e) de tribunal Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION [1] This is the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX, his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their minor son, XXXX XXXX, who claim to be citizens of Hungary, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 [2] These claims were joined according to Rule 49(1) of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. ALLEGATIONS [3] The principal claimant, Mr. XXXX XXXX (Sr.) will be known as the claimant and he alleges the following: [4] On XXXX XXXX, 2010, the claimant's wife was insulted by two unknown men, who meant to rape the claimant's wife but were prevented from doing so by three Romani men. [5] On unspecified dates, the claimants were chased by racists. The claimants escaped unharmed. [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2011, the claimant was attacked by a group of skinheads and the claimant was badly beaten. DETERMINATION [7] I find that the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. My reasons are as follows. ANALYSIS Identity [8] I find that the claimants are nationals of Hungary as is established by testimony and the supporting documentation filed,2 namely, their Hungarian passports. Section 96 and 97 [9] The determinative issue in this analysis is state protection. State Protection [10] According to the Hungarian Central Statistics Office, in 2007 the Romani community was the largest ethnic minority, accounting for 2% of the population, or about 200,000 persons. However, unofficial estimates, which vary widely, suggest the actual figure was much higher, ranging between 500,000 and 800,000 persons. Violent attacks against Roma continued and generated strong public concern and intense disputes as to the existence of racially motivated crime in the country. Human rights NGO's reported that Roma were discriminated against in almost all fields of life, particularly in employment, education, housing, penal institutions, and access to public places, such as restaurants and bars. According to statistics of the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development, Roma were significantly less educated than other citizens, and their incomes and life expectancy were well below average. According to the government, approximately 85 percent of working-age Roma were unemployed, and in many underdeveloped regions of the country, the number exceeded 90 percent. On July 11, 2011 parliament amended the law on public work stipulating that the unemployed who want to continue to receive benefits cannot reject public work opportunities unless they have small children, need to care for a sick family member, or would require more than three hours to commute to and from work. The new law, effective September 1, 2011 also reduced the period for which unemployment benefits are granted from 270 to 90 days and authorized local governments to set up their own preconditions for granting social subsidies. , The new National Public Employment Program, launched on September 1, 2011 and estimated to cost 60 billion forints ($249 million), provided part-time employment opportunities for 250,000 registered unemployed persons living on social welfare for two to four months. The public works program typically involves cleaning public spaces or work on agricultural or water projects. During the year approximately 302,152 individuals were involved in the various forms of public employment programs, including those run by local governments.3 The attitude of some Hungarian people, including some in positions of authority, toward the Roma is certainly discriminatory and prejudicial. It is clear from the documentary evidence that the effect has been to marginalize the Roma people. Roma are generally under-employed, under-educated, frequently live in subsistence housing, and are now subject to violence from radical elements who are gaining support from the general public to some extent. It is against this background, and in taking into consideration the particular circumstances relating to this claim, that I must determine whether or not adequate state protection exists for these particular claimants in Hungary. [11] The determinative issue in the case at hand is the presumption that countries are capable of protecting its citizens, and this underscores the principle that international protection comes into play only when a refugee claimant has no other recourse available. The Board is not obliged to prove that Hungary can offer the claimants effective state protection, rather, the claimants bear the legal burden of rebutting the presumption that adequate state protection exists by adducing clear and convincing evidence which satisfies the Board on a balance of probabilities.4 [12] In other words, to rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide "clear and convincing" confirmation of the state's inability to protect its citizens.5 A claimant who alleges that state protection is inadequate must persuade the Board that the evidence establishes that the state protection is in fact, inadequate. The evidence that state protection is inadequate must not only be reliable and probative, it must also satisfy the Board, on a balance of probabilities, that state protection is inadequate.6 [13] A claimant must show that he has taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances to seek protection, taking into account the context of the country of origin, the steps taken and the claimant's interactions with the authorities.7 I considered whether or not the claimant took all reasonable steps in their circumstances to seek protection. The claimant testified that on one occasion, the assault on his wife which occurred on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2010, neither the claimant nor his wife reported the incident to police before about two weeks had elapsed since the event because the claimant's wife was "shocked and depressed" immediately after the event. The Panel finds that waiting two weeks to report the event, albeit possibly understandable under the traumatic circumstances from the perspective of the victim, would impact directly and negatively on the possibility of any successful police investigation of the attempt. The Panel called the claimant's wife to testify directly to this event. The claimant's wife testified to the trauma she felt as being the reason for not reporting the attempt upon her for two weeks. The claimant's wife also testified that she did give the police descriptions of the perpetrators and testified that the police did, unsuccessfully try to find the attackers. When asked whether the claimant or his wife followed up with the police, the claimant testified that they had not because they "just didn't care about it anymore." The Panel asked the claimant whether he was aware of any higher authorities to whom he could complain or report the lack of police success to. The claimant testified that he was aware of the higher authority but just wanted to move on. [14] On another occasion of assault, XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011, the claimant testified that he did not call the police because nothing had been done by the police the last time the claimants had reported an assault (XXXX XXXX 2010) . In neither case did the claimants attempt to access a higher authority or to seek assistance from another state apparatus or a non governmental agency. The claimants failed to vigorously pursue all opportunities for state protection available to them. [15] The claimant testified to an event which occurred in XXXX of 2010 where he had attended a discotheque but was refused entry due to his ethnicity. Upon leaving to drive home, the claimant realized he was being followed by another vehicle which suddenly "cut him off" and forced him to stop. At that point, five armed men jumped from the other car and began to approach the claimant. The claimant managed to speed away, but was quickly followed by those men until the claimant reached an area occupied by Roma, where the other car then stopped following. The claimant testified that he did not report this incident to the police or to any authority. Again, the claimant testified that he did not report this because the report regarding his wife's assault seemed to accomplish nothing. [16] In view of these principles, I find that the claimants have not provided the requisite clear and convincing evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, state protection in Hungary is inadequate. [17] The claimant was asked what expectations he had of the police that they would try and resolve his complaint. The claimant testified that he had hoped that the police would find the perpetrators of the assaults against him and his family and punish them. [18] In this particular case, there is insufficient information to suggest that police did not make a genuine and earnest effort to investigate the claimant's allegations and apprehend the perpetrator of the attempt against the claimant's wife. No copy of a police report has been provided and no follow up by the claimant was done or testified to. [19] The claimant was questioned about his views on state protection in Hungary. The claimant testified that in his opinion, the state was unable to provide protection to "Gypsies" in Hungary. Counsel submits that the Board's own documentation8 speaks to Hungary's new constitution being at odds with human rights; however, the basis for that claim is that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" were left out of the constitution as a ground for discrimination. Although Amnesty International may find this to be at odds with Human rights, it does not indicate that Hungary fails to offer protection to minorities in general or Roma in particular. Counsel further disclosed a number of newspaper articles which suggest that Hungary is not a western style democracy which should reduce the onus on the claimant to rebut the presumption of state protection. I prefer the Board's documentation, including the U.S.A. Department of State (DOS) report which clearly identifies Hungary as a democratic state with all of the trappings of a democracy. Further, as Hungary is a member state of the European Union, and as such, must follow the rules of that organization in order to benefit from the Union, I find that I disagree with counsel's submission in this regard as the European Union does have strict guidelines on human rights for member states with strong sanctions against members states which fail to comply with those standards. [20] I found the claimant's responses regarding the effectiveness of state protection were not persuasive, since they were not consistent with that documentary evidence. I prefer that documentary evidence over the claimant's testimony and counsel's submissions since that evidence is drawn from a wide range of publicly accessible documents, from reliable nongovernmental and government organizations. [21] There is information in the documentation to indicate that there is widespread reporting of incidents of intolerance, discrimination and persecution of Romani individuals in Hungary. However, weighted against this is persuasive evidence that indicates that Hungary candidly acknowledges its past problems and is making serious efforts to rectify the treatment of minorities in that country, especially in the case of the Roma. The Board recognizes that there are some inconsistencies among several sources within the documentary evidence; however, the preponderance of the objective evidence regarding current country conditions suggests that, although not perfect, there is adequate state protection in Hungary for Roma who are victims of crime, police abuse, discrimination or persecution, that Hungary is making serious efforts to address these problems, and that the police and government officials are both willing and able to protect victims. [22] There is considerable activism in Hungary by the country's ethnic minorities for the protection of their rights. In July 1993 the government adopted legislation guaranteeing the cultural, civil and political rights of 12 minority groups and prohibiting ethnic discrimination. Following the approval of this legislation, minority rights activists launched a new campaign to change Hungary's electoral law, with the aim of securing the direct representation of ethnic groups in the legislature. In the 1994 municipal elections, ethnic minorities were able to elect their own local ethnic authorities, with consultative roles on cultural and educational issues affecting the community. In February 1995 Hungary signed the counsel of Europe Convention on the Protection of National Minorities. In April the role of Hungary elected their own governing body, the National Autonomous Authority of the Romany minority, which was in power to administer funds and deliberate issues affecting the Roma. The Political Handbook of the World notes that several political parties have condemned the Hungarian Guard, "labelling it as 'fascist'" (PHW 2011). The National Roma Council "demanded it be banned along with other paramilitary groups after the Guard marched several times outside Roma villages to protest 'Gypsy criminality'" (ibid.). The World Jewish Council also "called for the group to be banned because the Guard's coat of arms is associated with Hungary's World War II-era fascist Arrow Cross party" (ibid.). [23] Various sources report that the Hungarian Guard was banned in 2009 by the Hungarian courts (PHW 2011; AP 20 Apr. 2010; EUobserver.com 5 Apr. 2011) for "rejecting equal rights to Romas and inciting resentment against them" (PHW 2011). However, the group reorganized itself into new organizations with similar-sounding names and many of the same members (EUobserver.com 5 Apr. 2011; AP 3 Apr. 2011). The groups that have been linked to the disbanded Hungarian Guard and Jobbik include the following: * The Hungarian National Guard * Civil Guard Association for a Better Future (also translated as the Society of Civil Guards for a Brighter Future) * The New Hungarian Guard * The Guard Motorcyclists and the National Garrison * The Brighter Future militia * Vagabonds for the Protection of Hungarians and Defence Force (Vedero)9 [24] Civilian authorities maintained effective control over police, the NDS, and the armed forces, and the government has effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. There were no reports of security forces acting with impunity. [25] While there were no reports of impunity, the HHC noted that there was a great disparity between the number of indictments of members of security forces alleged to have committed abuses and the indictment of persons alleged to have committed violent acts against officials. In the first six months of the year, only 6 percent of complaints of abuse by members of the security forces resulted in an indictment, while 76 percent of alleged acts of violence against an official person resulted in an indictment. There was also a significant disparity between the conviction rate of members of the security forces charged with a crime (60 percent) and the conviction rate for persons indicted for violence against an official person (96 percent). In the first nine months of the year, authorities found 3,022 police officers responsible for breaches of discipline, 766 guilty of petty offences, 283 guilty of criminal offences, and 10 unfit for duty. In the same period, courts sentenced four police officers to prison terms, gave suspended sentences to 39, fined 106, and dismissed 12. In the same period, courts convicted 37 officers of corruption. No information was available on the number placed on probation. [26] Victims of lesser police abuses may complain either to the alleged violator's unit or to the Independent Police Complaints Board (IPCB), which investigated violations and omissions by the police that affected fundamental rights. The five-member body, appointed by a two-thirds majority of the parliament, function independently of police authorities. At year's end the board had received 805 reports from the public. It reviewed 458 complaints (including some cases filed in 2010) and found serious legal violations in 67 and minor legal violations in 33. The board forwarded the 67 cases to the national police chief, who agreed with the findings in two cases, partially accepted the findings in three, and rejected the findings in three. The rest remained pending. The IPCB's authority is limited to making recommendations to the NPH and reporting its findings to parliament. [27] Further documentary evidence indicates: The Parliamentary Commissioner for National and Ethnic Minority Rights (Minority Ombudsman) took complaints from any person who feels that as a result of a government agency's decision, proceedings or negligence, a violation has taken place in her/his national or ethnic minority rights, or that the direct threat of such a violation is imminent. The documentary evidence indicates many other similar initiatives undertaken by the Hungarian government to address the problems of corruption within its police forces and to provide measures or avenues of complaint to the public.10 [28] The evidence indicates that police do still commit abuses against people, including the Roma, but there is also evidence that indicates it is reasonable to expect authorities to take action in these cases. [29] There is also recourse to the Equal Treatment Authority. Since 2005 it has provided individuals with a direct avenue of redress for violations of the prohibition of discrimination in a variety of public and private law relationships. In the first year, there were nearly 500 complaints lodged and the number has risen steadily every since. There are also other remedies such as seeking compensation through the courts, or turning to one of the Parliamentary Commissioners where public authorities are concerned.11 [30] There is also the Roma Police Officers' Association in Hungary and Roma are able to file a complaint to the association. The complaints mostly concern discrimination in employment, discriminatory treatment, and discrimination by law enforcement authorities or police officers.12 [31] The claimant testified to various instances of outright discrimination against him and his family. If the claimant faces discrimination, he has recourse to all the programs above and those below, for assistance should he need it. [32] The Hungarian government has taken a number of legal and institutional measures to improve the situation of the Romani minority. According to the open Society Institute, Hungary has one of the most advanced systems for minority protection in the region. The Hungarian Government lists a number of institutions within the state apparatus, including the Roma Integration Department within the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor, the main government body responsible for Romani integration and the Council of Roma Integration, a consultative, advisory body, which coordinates measures between various ministries on the social inclusion of Roma.13 Hungary has taken a number of initiatives relating to the situation of the Roma including, education, employment, housing, health, and political representation.14 [33] Regarding the government's efforts to specifically address issues faced by the Roma population, the documentary evidence demonstrates: Most ministries and county labour affairs centers had special officers for Romani affairs focused on the needs of the Romani community. The Ministry of National Resources continued to offer financial incentives to encourage schools to integrate Romani and non-Romani children in the same classrooms and to reintegrate Roma inappropriately placed in remedial programs. The Ministry also operated a program to finance infrastructure development in Romani communities. The prime minister named Zoltan Balog as state secretary for social inclusion, charged with coordinating government efforts to address Roma issues. The Ministry of Public Administration and Justice (formerly the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement) operated an antidiscrimination legal service network that provided free legal aid to Roma in cases where they encountered ethnic discrimination. Human rights NGOs lamented that the lawyers' offices were located in the larger cities, rendering them inaccessible to those Roma living in deep poverty in small villages. HCLU received reports that the network's lawyers rejected some Romani cases.15 [34] Hungary faces criticisms regarding the implementation of the laws that it has enacted to address the discrimination and persecution of its minorities, especially the Romani. While there may be motivation within the central government to have its laws enforced, there is difficulty in implementing the enforcement of these laws at the local level, and resources routinely fail to reach the groups with the greatest needs. The criticisms against Hungary may be deserved, but what is important to note is that Hungary is a part of the European Union and is therefore responsible for upholding a number of various standards to maintain its membership in the Union. For instance, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) was established by the Council of Europe. It is an independent human rights monitoring body specialized in questions relating to racism and intolerance. It is composed of independent and impartial members, who are appointed on the basis of their moral authority and recognized expertise in dealing with racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance. The ECRI published a report on Hungary in which gives praise to Hungary for its accomplishments, cites issues of concern, and gives recommendation for future action.16 What is important to note in this instance, is that Hungary is not an island unto its own, but it is a responsible member of the European Union and reports regularly to the governance structures within that Union. Even if criticism of Hungary's measures to combat racism is warranted, particularly against the Romani population, on a balance of probabilities, Hungary is taking the measures to implement the standards that are mandated as a member of the European Union. [35] Therefore, having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimants, in the circumstances of this case, have failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and that the claimants did not take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to avail themselves of that protection before making a claim for refugee protection. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the state of Hungary would not be reasonably forthcoming with state protection, should the claimants seek it. [36] There is insufficient persuasive evidence before me that the claimants would face persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, face a risk to his life or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture, if they returned to Hungary. For all these reasons, I find that that the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, whether under section 96 or section 97 of the Act, as state protection is available to them. PRINCIPLES AND JURISPRUDENCE APPLIED [37] In the case at hand, I have applied the following principles and jurisprudence. [38] The Board, in assessing the issue of state protection, is guided by the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court. The courts have established a number of principles relating to state protection and I have applied those principles to the case at hand. [39] There is a presumption that, except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens. The presumption that a state is capable of protecting its citizens underscores the principle that international protection comes into play only when a refugee claimant has no other recourse available. Having canvassed the country conditions documents, I find that Hungary is in effective control of its territory and has in place a functioning security force to uphold the laws and constitution of the country.17 [40] To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide "clear and convincing" confirmation of the state's inability to protect its citizens.18 A claimant who alleges that state protection is inadequate must persuade the Board that the evidence establishes that the state protection is in fact, inadequate. The evidence that state protection is inadequate must not only be reliable and probative, it must also satisfy the Board, on a balance of probabilities, that state protection is inadequate.19 Where a state is in effective control of its territory, has military, police and civil authority in place and makes serious efforts to protect its citizens, the mere fact that the state's efforts are not always successful will not rebut the presumption of state protection.20 A claimant cannot rebut the presumption of state protection in a functioning democracy by asserting only a subjective reluctance to engage the state.21 Doubting the effectiveness of the protection offered by the state when one has not really tested it does not rebut the existence of a presumption of state protection.22 [41] Refugee protection is meant to be a form of surrogate protection to be invoked only in those situations where the refugee claimant has unsuccessfully sought the protection of their home state. The onus is on the claimant to approach the state for protection in situations where state protection might be reasonably forthcoming.23 To qualify for refugee status, a claimant must satisfy the Board that he or she sought, but was unable to obtain, protection from their home state, or alternatively, that their home state, on an objective basis, could not be expected to provide protection.24 In the absence of a compelling explanation, a failure to pursue state protection opportunities within the home state will usually be fatal to a refugee claim, at least where the state is a functioning democracy with a willingness and the apparatus necessary to provide a measure of protection to its citizens.25 [42] A claimant's burden of proof is directly proportional to the level of democracy in the state in question: the more democratic the state's institutions, the more the claimant must have done to exhaust all courses of action open to them.26 In a functioning democracy, a claimant will have a heavy burden when attempting to show that they should not have been required to exhaust all of the recourses available to them domestically before claiming refugee status.27 The documentary evidence28 before the Board indicates that Hungary is a democracy, and there are free and fair elections. There is a relatively independent and impartial judiciary. Therefore, in countries such as Hungary, the claimant must do more than merely show that he or she went to see members of the police force and that those efforts were unsuccessful. A claimant must show that they have taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances to seek protection, taking into account the context of the country of origin, the steps taken and the claimant's interactions with the authorities.29 Local failures by authorities to provide protection do not mean that the state as a whole fails to protect its citizens, unless the failures form part of a broader pattern of the state's inability or refusal to provide protection.30 No government is expected to guarantee perfect protection to all of its citizens at all times, and the fact that a state is not always successful in protecting its citizens, is not enough to justify a claim, especially where a state is in effective control of its territory, has military, police and civil authorities in place and is making serious efforts to protect its citizens.31 Less than perfect protection is not a basis to determine that a state is either unwilling or unable to offer reasonable protection.32 [43] Therefore, I find the claimants are not persons in need of protection and their claims under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA fail. CONCLUSION [44] There is not a serious possibility of persecution and the claimants would not be subjected personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, should they return to Hungary. Accordingly, the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. [45] The claims are rejected. (signed) "David Lowe" David Lowe August 13, 2012 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 2 Exhibit R/A-2, copy of passport. 3 Exhibit R/A - 3, National Documentation Package for Hungary (4 June 2012), item 2.1, United States, Department of State. "Hungary." 24 May 2012. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011. 4 Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-822-06), O'Reilly, March 26, 2007, 2007 FC 320. Reported: Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2008] 1 F.C.R. 3 (F.C.); Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Létourneau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.); Sanchez, Valentin Quintero v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4478-10), Near, April 28, 2011, 2011 FC 491. 5 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 725, 709 and 724. 6 Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-822-06), O'Reilly, March 26, 2007, 2007 FC 320. Reported: Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2008] 1 F.C.R. 3 (F.C.); Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Létourneau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.). 7 Peralta, Gloria Del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5451-01), Heneghan, September 20, 2002; 2002 FCT 989. 8 Exhibit R/A-3, item 6.2, Amnesty International.20 April 2011. "Hungary: Newly Adopted Constitution at Odds with Human Rights." 9 Exhibit R/A -3, item 13.1, Response to Information Request HUN103810.E 10 Exhibit R/A-3, item 10.2, Response to Information Request HUN103566.E. 11 Exhibit R/A-3, item 13.3, Council of Europe (COE). 24 February 2009. European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). ECRI Report on Hungary (Fourth Monitoring Cycle); and item13.10, Response to Information Request HUN103232.E. 15 October 2009. 12 Exhibit R/A-3, item 10.1, Response to Information Request HUN103091.E. 21 April 2009. 13 Exhibit R/A 3, Item 13.8, Response to Information Request HUN103267.E, 16 October 2009. 14 Exhibit R/A 3, Item 13.7, Response to Information Request HUN103827.E, 12 October, 2011. 15 Exhibit R/A - 3, item, 2.1. 16 Exhibit R/A-3, item 13.2, Hungary. 4 June 2009. Third Report Submitted by Hungary Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. 17 Exhibit R/A - 3, Item, 2.1. 18 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 725, 709 and 724. 19 Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-822-06), O'Reilly, March 26, 2007, 2007 FC 320. Reported: Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2008] 1 F.C.R. 3 (F.C.); Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Létourneau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.). 20 Villafranca: M.E.I. v. Villafranca, Ignacio (F.C.A., no. A-69-90), Marceau, Hugessen, Décary, December 18, 1992. Reported: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.), at 133. 21 Camacho, Jane Egre Sonia v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4300-06), Barnes, August 10, 2007; 2007 FC 830. 22 Ramirez, Leticia Lizet Del Rio v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1301-08), Lagacé, October 31, 2008, 2008 FC 1214. 23 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 725. 24 Hinzman, Jeremy v. M.C.I. and Hughey, Brandon David v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., nos. A-182-06; A-185-06), Décary, Sexton, Evans, April 30, 2007; 2007 FCA 171. 25 Camacho, Jane Egre Sonia v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4300-06), Barnes, August 10, 2007; 2007 FC 830. 26 Kadenko: M.C.I. v. Kadenko, Ninal (F.C.A., no. A-388-95), Hugessen, Décary, Chevalier, October 15, 1996. Reported: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kadenko (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532 (F.C.A.), at 536. 27 Hinzman, Jeremy v. M.C.I. and Hughey, Brandon David v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., nos. A-182-06; A-185-06), Décary, Sexton, Evans, April 30, 2007; 2007 FCA 171, para. 46. 28 Exhibit R/A - 3, item, 2.1. 29 Peralta, Gloria Del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5451-01), Heneghan, September 20, 2002; 2002 FCT 989. 30 Zhuravlvev, Anatoliy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3603-99), Pelletier, April 14, 2000. Reported: Zhuravlvev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 4 F.C. 3 (T.D.). 31 Villafranca: M.E.I. v. Villafranca, Ignacio (F.C.A., no. A-69-90), Marceau, Hugessen, Décary, December 18, 1992. Reported: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.). 32 Milev, Dane v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1125-95), MacKay, June 28, 1996. REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / ETHNICITY / THREAT / RAPE / STATE PROTECTION / DISCRIMINATION / MALE / SPOUSE / SON / MINOR / NEGATIVE / HUNGARY --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009) Disponible en français RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009) Disponible en français RPD File No. : TB1-15357 TB1-15383 TB1-15402 RPD File No. :TB1-15357 TB1-15383 TB1-15402