TA9-14962

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence because they did not take reasonable steps to seek state remedies, gave inconsistent and unpersuasive evidence on material points (including the child's school report and failure to seek police or medical help), and documentary country evidence showed Hungary provides adequate protection and institutional remedies; therefore their claims under ss.96 and 97 IRPA fail.

Citation: TA9-14962
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Common Law Spouse: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Child: XXXXXXXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 21 November 2011
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome: Claims rejected by the Refugee Protection Division
Legal Topics: State Protection, Persecution, Discrimination (roma), Credibility, Exhaustion of Remedies, Child Education
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Discrimination (roma) Credibility Exhaustion of Remedies +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Common Law Spouse

XXXXXXXXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

1 Credibility of claimants' narratives
2 Whether discrimination equals persecution
3 Whether state protection in Hungary is reasonably forthcoming

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claims rejected by the Refugee Protection Division

Orders

Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the principal claimant, his common-law spouse and their minor child under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA