TB0-02597

TB0-02597

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence; available domestic remedies and active state measures render state protection adequate, therefore the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA are denied.

Citation
TB0-02597
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Panel Member: Marlene D.M. Hogarth; Tribunal Officer: Kristina Genjaga; Counsel for the Minister: J. Daubney; Expert Witness: Mr. XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision
Outcome
Claims denied
Legal Topics
State Protection, Discrimination, Roma, Child Best Interests, Persecution, Child Refugee Guidelines
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Discrimination Roma Child Best Interests +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Marlene D.M. Hogarth

Panel Member

Kristina Genjaga

Tribunal Officer

J. Daubney

Counsel for the Minister

Mr. XXXX XXXX

Expert Witness

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants meet the definition of Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is a nexus between harm and race (Roma)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence; available domestic remedies and active state measures render state protection adequate, therefore the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA are denied.

Court Disposition

Claims denied

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division denies the claims of the twin claimants; no protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.