TA9-22080

TA9-22080

On the evidence presented the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection; documentary evidence showed state mechanisms and investigations existed and were operational; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-22080
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse (female Claimant): XXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims denied; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Hate Crimes, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Country Conditions, Burden and Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Hate Crimes Ethnic Discrimination (roma) +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX

Spouse (female Claimant)

XXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection was available in Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence presented the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection; documentary evidence showed state mechanisms and investigations existed and were operational; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims denied; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects all claims