TB6-14034

TB6-14034

On the record the appellants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection; documentary evidence showed discrimination but also legislative and operational measures and remedies in Hungary; no new evidence was submitted to trigger an oral hearing; therefore the RAD correctly confirmed the RPD and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
TB6-14034
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (XXXX XXXX); Spouse/appellant: Female Appellant (XXXX XXXX); Adult Child/appellant: Male Appellant (XXXX XXXX); Minor Appellant (designated Representative: Principal Appellant): Minor Appellant (XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision Rendered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing Discretion, Roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Vs Discrimination Standard of Review Oral Hearing Discretion +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (XXXX XXXX)

Principal Appellant

Female Appellant (XXXX XXXX)

Spouse/appellant

Male Appellant (XXXX XXXX)

Adult Child/appellant

Minor Appellant (XXXX XXXX)

Minor Appellant (designated Representative: Principal Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discrimination and physical assaults alleged amount to persecution
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Hungary is inadequate for these Roma appellants
  3. 3 Whether new evidence exists requiring an oral hearing at the RAD under s.110(4)-(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

On the record the appellants failed to rebut the presumption that Hungary can provide adequate state protection; documentary evidence showed discrimination but also legislative and operational measures and remedies in Hungary; no new evidence was submitted to trigger an oral hearing; therefore the RAD correctly confirmed the RPD and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision
  • Appeal dismissed