TB0-01611

TB0-01611

The panel rejected the refugee claims because the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence; the male claimant's credibility was undermined by significant inconsistencies and omissions, and documentary evidence demonstrated available and operational state remedies and mechanisms (police response, IPCB, Equal Treatment Authority, Ombudsman) making protection reasonably forthcoming.

Citation
TB0-01611
Parties
Claimant (uncle and Designated Representative): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (adult Sister): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor Niece): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Sexual Orientation, Ethnicity, Roma Discrimination, Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Sexual Orientation Ethnicity +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (uncle and Designated Representative)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (adult Sister)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor Niece)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary
  2. 2 Credibility of the male claimant and omissions/inconsistencies in narratives
  3. 3 Whether persecution is established on grounds of Roma ethnicity and sexual orientation

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the refugee claims because the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence; the male claimant's credibility was undermined by significant inconsistencies and omissions, and documentary evidence demonstrated available and operational state remedies and mechanisms (police response, IPCB, Equal Treatment Authority, Ombudsman) making protection reasonably forthcoming.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the claimants.