Docket:
IMM-962-17
Citation:
2017 FC 860
Toronto, Ontario, September 26, 2017
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.
Justice Campbell
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RICHARD ATTILA PIKATS
BETTINA DINDO
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
On August 29, 2011, the RPD rejected the
Applicants’ claim as Roma citizens of Hungary, and, as a result, the Applicants
left Canada in the latter part of 2012. However, on the basis of new evidence,
they returned to Canada in 2016 and were allowed to make a PRRA application.
The present Application challenges the PRRA decision dated January 31, 2017 in
which the Applicants’ claim for protection was again refused.
[2]
A principle feature of the PRAA application was
the threat of violence as Roma should they be required to return to Hungary. The
PRRA Officer explained the application as follows:
In short, it is submitted that the
applicants, if required to return to Hungary, will face threats and attacks by
extremist and paramilitary groups and the state will not adequately protect
them. It is also stated that the applicants will face discrimination amounting
to persecution in housing and health care on the basis of their ethnicity. In
addition, counsel makes the assertion that the female applicant is particularly
vulnerable to the extremists who want to do her harm. Counsel notes that her
sisters in law [sic] were threatened with rape and her mother was raped.
In addition, counsel maintains that the
applicants face a danger to their lives in Hungary, a place where they were
threatened and attacked, a place where they were forcibly evicted from their
home, and denied housing. Counsel concludes that the applicants will also face
persecution in Hungary or be killed upon
their return. (Decision, page 3)
[3]
The Applicants’ experience in Hungary between
the time of their return and the filing of the PRRA application is stated and
commented upon by the PRRA Officer as follows:
Also included in submissions were black and
white photocopies of what appears to be photographs of the applicants and
members of their family with bruises to their face and other parts of their
body. I have also been provided with translated copies of medical reports for
the applicants and members of their family. I accept that the applicants and
members of their family sustained injuries in Hungary and that sthey were able
to attend the hospital (various hospitals) where they were seen by a physician,
received treatment, tests etc. I note there is nothing to indicate that the
applicants and members of their family were denied medical services in Hungary
when required. Furthermore, insufficient objective evidence was provided to indicate
that the applicants were required to pay the hospital prior to receiving
treatment. What I have before me is evidence that establishes that the
applicants suffered injuries, attended a hospital, were examined by a physician
and subsequently released. I find this evidence indicative that the
applicants, on a balance of probabilities, will be able to obtain medical care
in Hungary should the need arise notwithstanding their Roma ethnicity.
[Emphasis added] (Decision, p. 6)
[4]
The remarkable feature of the finding just
quoted is that the PRRA Officer paid no attention to the detailed evidence of
the serious violence the Applicants suffered, but instead focussed on the fact
that they received medical attention. In doing so, the PRRA Officer failed to
address a wealth of cogent evidence that goes to establish that there exists
more than a mere possibility that, should they be required to return to Hungary,
they will suffer persecutory violence as Romani people. (See Tribunal Record,
Vol. 1, pp. 153-193).
[5]
Given the reviewable error of fact-finding
identified, I find the decision under review is unreasonable.
Email this Content