Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20121016

Docket: IMM-1119-12

Citation: 2012 FC 1208

Toronto, Ontario, October 16, 2012

PRESENT:    The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes

BETWEEN:

           REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]               The Applicants are a family, all Hungarian citizens. The Principal Applicant is the wife who is ethnically Roma, the husband is not, and their child is half Roma. They claim persecution in Hungary and have sought refugee protection in Canada. By a decision of a Member of the Refugee Protection Division dated January 16, 2012 that claim was rejected. This is an application for judicial review of that decision. For the reasons that follow I am dismissing this application.

[2]               Applicants’ Counsel, in argument, raised three issues:

a.       There was no determination as to persecution;

b.      The analysis of state protection was erroneous;

c.       The Member ignored evidence.

[3]               As to issue #1, the Member did not make an explicit determination as to persecution. What the Member did was go straight to the issue of state protection, the assumption beign that, even if there was persecution, the Member would have to consider state protection. Quite obviously if the Member had found that there was no persecution the matter could have been rejected on that ground alone. The Member committed no reviewable error in going directly to state protection.

[4]               As to issue #3 it appears that, after the hearing, Applicants’ Counsel sought and received permission to file additional materials directed to state protection in Hungary. The Member in the Reasons acknowledges this and makes mention of the material in a footnote. Applicants’ Counsel did not point to any critical or determinative material contained in the additional evidence. The Member was clearly aware of the material. No reviewable error was committed by the Member in treating the evidence in the manner that it was.

[5]               Issue #2 deals with state protection and in particular state protection available to Roma in Hungary.

[6]               An analysis of state protection is essentially factual and rests in addressing two questions:

a.     Have the Applicants rebutted the presumption that there is in existence at the time adequate state protection for persons in the circumstances of the Applicants?

b.      Did the Applicants take reasonable steps to avail themselves of that state protection if it were found to exist?

[7]               The Member found, on the evidence, that the Applicants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection and that they had failed to take reasonable steps to avail themselves of that protection.

[8]               I have reviewed the record and the Member’s Reasons. Those reasons are careful and balanced and reveal the frailties of state protection in Hungary for Roma as well as its strong points. The reasoning is commendable and I find that the decision is reasonable.

[9]               Neither party requested a certified question. 

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1.                  The application is dismissed;

2.                  No question is certified;

3.                  No Order as to costs. 

“Roger T. Hughes”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                         IMM-1119-12

STYLE OF CAUSE:                        RITA PALFI, TAMAS TABOR VARGA, DOMINIK TAMAS VARGA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                    OCTOBER 16, 2012

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                           HUGHES J.

DATED:                                            OCTOBER 16, 2012

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: