TA9-21606

TA9-21606

The claimant failed to rebut the strong presumption of adequate state protection in democratic Hungary with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek state protection; documentary record demonstrates available remedies and state efforts to protect Roma; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-21606
Parties
Claimant Principal (male): XXXXXXX; Claimant Spouse (female): XXXXXXXX XXXX; Claimant Minor (son): XXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division Final Decision)
Outcome
Refused. Male claimant's refugee claim and claim for protection rejected; not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Ethnic Discrimination, Roma Community, Persecution, Risk of Torture, Procedural Fairness, Disjoining Claims
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Ethnic Discrimination Roma Community Persecution +3 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXX

Claimant Principal (male)

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Claimant Spouse (female)

XXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant Minor (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division Final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant proved a well-founded fear of persecution for Convention reasons (Roma ethnicity)
  2. 2 Whether Hungary provides adequate state protection or claimant rebutted presumption of protection
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces risk to life, risk of torture, or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the strong presumption of adequate state protection in democratic Hungary with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek state protection; documentary record demonstrates available remedies and state efforts to protect Roma; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refused. Male claimant's refugee claim and claim for protection rejected; not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims of the female claimant and the minor claimant disjoined from the male claimant's claim
  • Male claimant's claims under section 96 and section 97(1) of the IRPA are rejected by the Refugee Protection Division