TA9-19047

TA9-19047

The claimants failed to rebut the strong presumption of available state protection in democratic Hungary with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to obtain protection domestically; objective country evidence shows Hungary has adequate protection mechanisms and has taken serious efforts to address violence against Roma; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-19047
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Reasons and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claims rejected; the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Hate Crimes, Racial/ethnic Discrimination, Particular Social Group, Family Based Claims, Children
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Hate Crimes Racial/ethnic Discrimination Particular Social Group +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Reasons and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hungary provides adequate state protection to Roma claimants
  2. 2 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether the claimants exhausted or took reasonable steps to obtain protection domestically

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the strong presumption of available state protection in democratic Hungary with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to obtain protection domestically; objective country evidence shows Hungary has adequate protection mechanisms and has taken serious efforts to address violence against Roma; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the claimants; no protection granted