Hegedüs v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1366

Date: 20111125

Docket: IMM-2343-11

Citation: 2011 FC 1366

Toronto, Ontario, November 25, 2011

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell

BETWEEN:

           REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]               The present Application concerns a negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in which the Applicants were found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.  The Applicants, Tiborné Hegedüs, her husband, Tibor Hegedüs and their daughter, Anett Hegedüs claim a well-founded fear of persecution in Hungary because of their Roma ethnicity.

[2]               Before the RPD the Applicants described discrimination at school, in housing, medical care and employment, recounted incidents of violence, arson and vandalism to their home, and told of police harassment and inaction. The RPD found that while these events constitute discrimination, they do not rise to the level of persecution. The RPD’s determination is as follows:

I find that the claimants may have been subject to discrimination because of their Roma ethnicity but this discrimination both singularly and cumulatively does not rise to the level of persecution.  I also considered the physical attacks on the claimants in the following section and I find that they are not sustained or systematic violation of basic human rights demonstrating a failure of state protection.

[Emphasis added]

(Decision, paras. 30 -31)

This statement is made with no critical analysis. This Court has repeatedly stated that a failure to provide any real explanation as to why the cumulative actions do not amount to persecution is a reviewable error (Tetik v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1240; Bledy v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 210; Rahman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 768).

[3]               In addition, contrary to the statement made in the quote above, the RPD never did consider the physical attacks on the Applicants.

[4]               As a result, I find that the decision under review is made in reviewable error.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that the decision under review is set aside and the matter is referred back for redetermination before a differently constituted panel.

There is no question to certify.

                                                                                                            “Douglas R. Campbell”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-2343-11

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          TIBORNÉ HEGEDÜS (A.K.A TIBORNE HEGEDUS)

ANETT HEGEDÜS (A.K.A. ANETT HEGEDUS)

TIBOR HEGEDUS v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                      NOVEMBER 24, 2011

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                            CAMPBELL J.

DATED:                                             NOVEMBER 25, 2011

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: