TB8-15615

TB8-15615

The appellants failed to produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection in Hungary; the RPD conducted a thorough analysis of documentary and personal evidence and reasonably concluded state protection was available, so the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB8-15615
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons for Decision Confirming RPD Determination; No New Evidence; No Hearing Requested
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).
Legal Topics
State Protection, Onus of Proof, Standard of Review, Roma Discrimination
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law State Protection Onus of Proof Standard of Review Roma Discrimination

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons for Decision Confirming RPD Determination; No New Evidence; No Hearing Requested

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection
  2. 2 Whether appellants met the clear and convincing evidence standard to show state protection was inadequate
  3. 3 Whether documentary and personal evidence demonstrated systemic inability or unwillingness of Hungarian state to protect Roma claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection in Hungary; the RPD conducted a thorough analysis of documentary and personal evidence and reasonably concluded state protection was available, so the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Orders

  • Confirm RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • Appeal dismissed