TB1-19659

TB1-19659

On the evidence the incidents amounted to discrimination but not persecution; documentary and adjudicative evidence establishes operationally adequate state protection in Hungary (police response, ETA, courts, national programs); claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on clear and convincing evidence; therefore they are not Convention refugees and removal does not expose them to risks of death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment.

Citation
TB1-19659
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Claimant Adult Son: XXXX XXXX; Claimant Adult Daughter: XXXX XXXX; Claimant Adult Daughter (minor at Time of Filing): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Refugee Protection Division / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Discrimination Versus Persecution, Asylum Eligibility, Roma Minority Rights
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law State Protection Discrimination Versus Persecution Asylum Eligibility Roma Minority Rights

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Adult Son

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Adult Daughter

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Adult Daughter (minor at Time of Filing)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Refugee Protection Division / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discrimination experienced by claimants amounts to persecution under section 96
  2. 2 Whether operationally adequate state protection exists in Hungary for Roma claimants
  3. 3 Whether claimants rebut the presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the incidents amounted to discrimination but not persecution; documentary and adjudicative evidence establishes operationally adequate state protection in Hungary (police response, ETA, courts, national programs); claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on clear and convincing evidence; therefore they are not Convention refugees and removal does not expose them to risks of death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claims dismissed; removal to Hungary permitted