TB1-19578

TB1-19578

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; documentary and country condition evidence demonstrate that the Slovak Republic has functioning institutions, anti-corruption and minority-protection measures and has made serious efforts to address racially-motivated crimes against Roma, therefore state protection would be reasonably forthcoming and the claims fail under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-19578
Parties
Primary Claimant: XXXX XXXX XX; Spouse: XXXXXX XXXX XX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX XXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (final Determination)
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Derivative Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Ethnic Discrimination (roma) Derivative Claims

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Primary Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX XX

Spouse

XXXXXX XXXX XXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants meet the definition of Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the Slovak Republic can reasonably be expected to provide state protection to the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; documentary and country condition evidence demonstrate that the Slovak Republic has functioning institutions, anti-corruption and minority-protection measures and has made serious efforts to address racially-motivated crimes against Roma, therefore state protection would be reasonably forthcoming and the claims fail under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects these claims