TA9-24059

TA9-24059

The claimant's material omissions and inconsistencies (notably the late allegation that he was deliberately run over) undermine his credibility, and he failed to present clear and convincing evidence that state protection in Hungary is inadequate or unavailable; therefore he does not meet the statutory tests to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-24059
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXXXX; Daughter: XXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Procedural Omissions (poe/pif), Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Criminal Law (investigation) Refugee Protection State Protection Credibility Assessment Persecution Vs Discrimination +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXXX

Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision at Refugee Protection Division

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(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's account and late PIF amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's material omissions and inconsistencies (notably the late allegation that he was deliberately run over) undermine his credibility, and he failed to present clear and convincing evidence that state protection in Hungary is inadequate or unavailable; therefore he does not meet the statutory tests to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee claim of the claimant
  • Claims of spouse and daughter, founded on the same facts, are also denied