TB1-02333

TB1-02333

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence and did not take reasonable steps to seek domestic protection or provide corroborating documentation; on that basis the Panel found no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment and dismissed the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-02333
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse/claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX (minor)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Roma Discrimination, Convention Refugee Status, Burden of Proof, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Roma Discrimination Convention Refugee Status Burden of Proof Country Conditions

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/claimant

XXXX XXXX (minor)

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have an objectively reasonable fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection exists in Hungary
  3. 3 Whether claimants took all reasonable steps to seek state protection before fleeing

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence and did not take reasonable steps to seek domestic protection or provide corroborating documentation; on that basis the Panel found no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment and dismissed the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division claim dismissed
  • No grounds found for protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA