TA9-07413

TA9-07413

On the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection: documentary and country evidence show Hungary has laws, institutions and instances of enforcement and programs to protect Roma; the claimant did not reasonably test state remedies and credibility concerns undermine parts of the evidence; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
TA9-07413
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Final Decision (rpd)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Discrimination, Vulnerable Person, Mental Health, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Discrimination Vulnerable Person +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Final Decision (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 whether the claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection: documentary and country evidence show Hungary has laws, institutions and instances of enforcement and programs to protect Roma; the claimant did not reasonably test state remedies and credibility concerns undermine parts of the evidence; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

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