Date:
20121016
Docket:
IMM-1119-12
Citation:
2012 FC 1208
Toronto, Ontario, October 16, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
|
|
RITA PALFI
TAMAS TIBOR VARGA
DOMINIK TAMAS VARGA
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
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”
Email this Content