TB1-05322

TB1-05322

The Panel rejected the claims because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence, credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and conduct (leaving shortly after filing police report), and a viable internal flight alternative exists in Budapest; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor personal risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-05322
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Secondary Claimant / Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (male): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Ethnic Persecution (roma), Credibility Assessment, Risk of Torture, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Ethnic Persecution (roma) Credibility Assessment Risk of Torture +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Secondary Claimant / Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants, as Roma, face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Credibility of the PIF and oral testimony
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection exists in Hungary and whether claimant exhausted it

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claims because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence, credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and conduct (leaving shortly after filing police report), and a viable internal flight alternative exists in Budapest; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor personal risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claim of principal claimant rejected
  • Claims of secondary claimant and two minor claimants joined to and dismissed with principal claim