VB0-01279

VB0-01279

The claimant's experiences, while credible in part, amounted to discrimination and episodic criminality rather than persecution on the Convention ground of race; objective country evidence and legal framework demonstrate available state protection in Hungary and effective recourse mechanisms which the claimant did not exhaust; an internal flight alternative (Debrecen or Miskolc) is reasonable; therefore claimant is not a Convention refugee nor in need of protection.

Citation
VB0-01279
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under the Act.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Country Evidence (hungary), Roma Rights, Education and Employment Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Race Discrimination Persecution State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +4 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's experiences amount to persecution on the basis of race (Roma)
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Hungary is unavailable or inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's experiences, while credible in part, amounted to discrimination and episodic criminality rather than persecution on the Convention ground of race; objective country evidence and legal framework demonstrate available state protection in Hungary and effective recourse mechanisms which the claimant did not exhaust; an internal flight alternative (Debrecen or Miskolc) is reasonable; therefore claimant is not a Convention refugee nor in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under the Act.