TB0-16904

TB0-16904

The claimant's credibility was materially diminished by inconsistencies and lack of corroborating documentation, and he failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that Hungary can and does provide adequate state protection to Roma; accordingly the claim fails under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-16904
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXX; Dependent Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXX X; Dependent Claimant (daughter): XXXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision (merits Following Hearing)
Outcome
Claim dismissed: claimant and dependants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Persecution and Discrimination, Roma Minority, Convention Against Torture, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Credibility Persecution and Discrimination Roma Minority +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXX X

Dependent Claimant (spouse)

XXXXXXX XXXX

Dependent Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision (merits Following Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant and family evidence
  2. 2 Whether Hungary provides adequate state protection to Roma
  3. 3 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's credibility was materially diminished by inconsistencies and lack of corroborating documentation, and he failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that Hungary can and does provide adequate state protection to Roma; accordingly the claim fails under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed: claimant and dependants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.