TA8-22827

TA8-22827

The Board rejected the claims because the claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the Hungarian state was unable or unwilling to protect them, they did not exhaust available avenues of redress, and significant credibility concerns and delays undermined their claims; accordingly they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA8-22827
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXX; Husband / Co Claimant / Designated Representative for Minor: XXXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXX XXXXXX); Son / Co Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX; Son (minor) / Co Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX; Mother / Co Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX; Sister / Co Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX; Sister's Common Law Partner / Co Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXX; Sister's Son / Co Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Immigration Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision on Merits (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Delay in Claiming, Discrimination Vs Persecution, Roma Rights, Country Conditions Hungary
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Credibility Delay in Claiming Discrimination Vs Persecution +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXX XXXXXX)

Husband / Co Claimant / Designated Representative for Minor

XXXXXX XXXXXX

Son / Co Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXX

Son (minor) / Co Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXX

Mother / Co Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXX

Sister / Co Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXX

Sister's Common Law Partner / Co Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Sister's Son / Co Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Immigration Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision on Merits (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 delay in departure and delay in claiming
  2. 2 credibility of claimants' testimony
  3. 3 whether discrimination amounted to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Board rejected the claims because the claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the Hungarian state was unable or unwilling to protect them, they did not exhaust available avenues of redress, and significant credibility concerns and delays undermined their claims; accordingly they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Decision dated May 16, 2011