TB0-14565

TB0-14565

Hungary is a functioning democracy with effective law‑enforcement and oversight mechanisms; the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection with clear and convincing evidence and failed to exhaust reasonable domestic remedies; therefore they do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Citation
TB0-14565
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Secondary Claimant: XXX XXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Persecution, Risk Assessment, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Procedural Joinder
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Persecution Risk Assessment +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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXX XXXX XXXXX

Secondary Claimant

XXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hungary provides effective state protection to Roma claimants
  2. 2 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether claimants exhausted reasonable domestic remedies before claiming refugee protection

Ratio Decidendi

Hungary is a functioning democracy with effective law‑enforcement and oversight mechanisms; the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection with clear and convincing evidence and failed to exhaust reasonable domestic remedies; therefore they do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the principal, secondary and minor claimants; no protection granted