Category: Hungary

Citation: 2021 RLLR 104
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 30, 2021
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kristina Cooke
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: VC1-05525
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, this is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for the claim of XXXX XXXX who is a citizen of Hungary seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       I also reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s guideline on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution.

Allegations:

[3]       The claimant fears persecution if she were to return Hungary based on her Roma background. The claimant also left Hungary due to her fears from her ex-partner XXXX(ph) XXXX(ph).

[4]       Details of the claimant’s allegations can be found in her Basis of Claim Form and Narrative, including the amendments found at Exhibit 6. The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations and testimony.

[5]       The claimant’s parents were Roma. The claimant described her mother as light skinned Roma who is possibly half Roma.

[6]       In the 2013, the claimant met her ex-partner. The allegations describe numerous incidents where the claimant was a victim of physical abuse from her ex-partner throughout the entirety of their relationship.

[7]       The claimant also described numerous problems she experienced due to her Roma ethnicity. These include harassment and discrimination when she was at school, during employment, with public transportation, and in receiving healthcare,

[8]       Further, the claimant provided examples of violence she suffered due to her ethnicity. For example, in 2015, the claimant was attacked along with other Roma by skinned heads in Budapest when she was selling XXXX. Also, in 2015, the claimant began to save money in order to leave Hungary. The claimant only told her son her plans for leaving the country.

[9]       On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 the claimant left Hungary for Canada and claimed refugee protection.

Determination:

[10]     I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.

ANALYSIS:

Identity:

[11]     The claimant’s identity as a citizen of Hungary has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by the claimant’s testimony and Hungarian passport which is located at Exhibit 1.

Nexus:

[12]     The allegations establish a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant based on her ethnicity as Roma. The allegations may also support another nexus, but given my determination I find it unnecessary to assess an alternative nexus.

Credibility:

[13]     I find that, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established her Roma ethnicity. In making that finding I’m relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness.

[14]     In this regard, the claimant was able to describe incidents of discrimination throughout her life. The claimant testified that in her primary school she and other Roma students had to sit at the back of the classroom, and how there was a lot of hatred directed towards the Roma students.

[15]     The claimant also described incidents of discrimination when trying to find employment at her workplace, and while she was on the bus, as well as trying to obtain healthcare. The claimant described why she believed that the country conditions for Roma are the same throughout the country.

[16]     The claimant also testified that she would be identified as Roma due to her appearance, and she gave detailed testimony about Roma burial practices.

[17]     Finally, the claimant was able to answer specific questions when asked without apparent embellishment. There were no relevant inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and the other evidence. And as such, I find that the claimant was a credible witness.

[18]     The claimant also provided personal documents to support her claim found at Exhibit 4. These include medical records for the claimant. When asked why the claimant provided the documents she testified that she misunderstood what type of documents she needed to provide.

[19]     While I’ve no reason to doubt genuineness of these documents, I find that they have no relevance in the hearing today and I give them no weight.

[20]     Nonetheless, the credibility of the claimant does allow me to find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, the facts alleged in her claim, including her Roma background and her subjective fear of returning to Hungary.

Objective Basis:

[21]     The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Hungary due to her Roma ethnicity. For example, a 2021 response to information request at Item 13.5 in the National Documentation Package for Hungary, which is found at Exhibit 3, indicates that Roma in Hungary face widespread discrimination regardless of residence, education, and social status.

[22]     The report notes that discrimination exists in areas … sorry. The discrimination exists in access to justice, housing, employment, education, and healthcare. The report also indicates that Roma are subject to violence, and that Roma women face multiple intersectional forms of discrimination based on ethnicity and gender.

[23]     Another example can be found at … in a 2021 US Department of State report found at Item 2.1. That report states that and I quote,

Human rights NGOs continue to report that Roma suffered social and economic exclusion and discrimination in almost all fields of life. According to an October 12th report prepared for the Council of Europe by the advisory committee on the framework Convention for the protection of national minorities, Roma face discrimination in education, employment, and access to housing and healthcare.

[24]     The report also indicates that significant human rights issues in Hungary include threats of violence by extremists targeting Roma.

[25]     Further, with respect to violence, a 2019 response to information report on extremist violence against Roma described how racist violence against Roma remain one of the most pressing issues in the country. The RIR also quotes reports that an increasing number of Hungary … Hungarian youths are joining far right wing and neo-Nazi movements.

[26]     The claimant also provided numerous country condition documents found at Exhibit 7. These include articles that highlight specific incidents of discrimination the Roma face in Hungary with respect to housing, education, employment, and family unity.

[27]     Further, other recent articles describe the anti-Roma hatred and violence from far right groups in the country.

[28]     I find that the claimant has established, in addition to the incidents of violence, that she has faced cumulative ethnic discrimination in all aspects of her life that amount to persecution.

[29]     Given there is no indication that the conditions have improved in the country for the Roma people, I find that the claimant would face more than a mere possibly of persecution if she were to return to Hungary.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative:

[30]     I’ve considered whether State protection is available to the claimant.

[31]     The objective evidence, including reports noted above, indicates that anti-Roma prejudice is present among police officers, and Roma are subject to ethnic profiling.

[32]     For example, a 2018 response to information request found at Item 10.1 states a number of sources who indicate that the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes, and that Roma face continued hostility from police forces. This is similar to the claimant’s belief.

[33]     The claimant testified that the police have an attitude that they don’t care about what happens to the Roma people. The claimant said that the police knew skinheads were around and assaulting the Roma people selling produce and took no action. The claimant testified that she believed that the police were racist and did not help the Roma people.

[34]     Given the totality of the evidence, I find that there’s no operationally effective State protection available to the claimant in her particular circumstances,

[35]     Further, given that there is insufficient evidence to show that there’s a location in Hungary where the Roma do not face discrimination and violence and with the lack of State protection noted above, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant as she would face more than a mere possibility of persecution anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION:

[36]     For the foregoing reasons I determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the Board therefore accepts the claim.

[37]     Thank you. And, Madam Interpreter, whenever you’re ready just, please go ahead.———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2021 RLLR 100
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 4, 2021
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivio
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC1-05181
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: It is 3:29 p.m. And I am about to deliver my decision and reasons for the decision in the claim for protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX is not present. He has been informed of the decision.

[2]       XXXX XXXX XXXX, the claimant, seeks protection pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The claimant is a citizen of Hungary.

[3]       In coming to my decision, I’ve taken into account specific cultural and social circumstances of the claimant as well as the chairperson’s sexual orientation and gender identity and expression guidelines. The allegations of this claim are found in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form and his testimony.

[4]       The claimant alleges the following. The claimant fears persecution on the basis of race as well as on the basis of membership in a particular social group, in this case sexual orientation, at the hands of society in general in Hungary. The claimant alleges that if he returns to Hungary, he would be subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence as a result of his Roma ethnicity. He also alleges that he would be subject to discrimination, harassment, violence, and the ostracization of his community because he’s a gay man.

[5]       At the outset of the hearing, I identified credibility as a primary issue for the hearing to focus on. I also identified the availability of state protection as an issue to be addressed.

[6]       With respect to identity, on the file is a certified copy of the claimant’s passport from Hungary. Through this document and his testimony, the claimant has established his personal identity and his citizenship of Hungary. The claimant has also submitted into evidence a certification of Roma ethnicity from the Toronto Roma Community Centre, and therefore I find the claimant has established his ethnic identity as a person of Roma origin.

[7]       With respect to credibility, a claimant testifying under oath or affirmation is presumed to be telling the truth unless there are valid reasons to reject the testimony. In this case, I find no such valid reason to disbelieve the claimant’s testimony. The claimant’s answers to the questions put to him at the hearing were forthright and spontaneous despite some nervous on the part of the claimant. The claimant’s testimony was consistent with his Basis of Claim form. And the harassment and discrimination described by the claimant are consistent with reports found in the National Documentation Package for Hungary. There were no material inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony. And overall, I find the claimant’s testimony to be credible and trustworthy. The claimant testified that as a Roma he has discriminate — experienced discrimination in education, in the provision of housing, in the provision of other public services, and in employment. The claimant further testified that he’s been a victim of threats and violence in public at the hands of anti-Roma gangs. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has experienced discrimination and harassment as a result of his Roma ethnicity in Hungary. I further find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has faced violence or the threat of violence in Hungary at the hands of anti-Roma groups. Although discrimination by itself need not constitute persecution, pervasive discrimination when coupled with the threat of violence does equate to persecution in the case of the claimant.

[8]       The claimant testified that he became aware of his sexual orientation when he was about 17 years old. He did not discuss this with his family as the attitudes towards homosexuality in the traditional Roma community may be negative. The claimant testified that he told his family about his sexual orientation shortly before he left for Canada. His father’s negative reaction to this discovery led to the breakup of the claimant’s parents’ marriage and was also the impetus for the claimant to decide he could no longer live in Hungary. As noted, I found the claimant overall to be credible and trustworthy.

[9]       As part of the evidence submitted by the claimant, his mother and a friend have both provided statements that confirmed the claimant’s sexual orientation. In light of my findings on credibility and taking into consideration the supporting evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is a gay man. I further find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has faced exclusion from his ethnic community and family as a result of his sexual orientation.

[10]     The claimant testified that that if he — he fears that if he were to return to Hungary, he will continue to face the same persecution as he has in the past. I’m satisfied that the claimant has a genuine fear of persecution in the form of harassment, discrimination, and violence on the ground of his Roma ethnicity and his status as a gay man should he return to Hungary.

[11]     Having found the claimant to have a fear of persecution, I turn to the question of whether this fear has an objective basis. Reports from the National Documentation Package for Hungary confirm that persecution and harassment continue for the Roma population of Hungary. I find the claimant’s fear of persecution on the basis of his ethnicity has an objective basis. Reports from the National Documentation Package for Hungary also note that while Hungary has relatively liberal laws concerning sexual minorities, Hungary is moving to an increasingly hostile atmosphere towards the LGBTQ population. Hate speech against this community is increasing as is violence. Both the media and the government are becoming increasingly hostile towards sexual minorities. On May 15th, 2019, the speaker of parliament in Hungary noted publicly that morally there is no difference between the behaviour of the pedophile and the behaviour and proponents of same sex marriage. I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution on the basis of sexual orientation has an objective basis.

[12]     With respect to whether the claimant has an internal flight alternative, country condition reports confirm that persecution against the Roma population of the sort described by the claimant is widespread throughout Hungary and is in many instances tacitly approved of by authorities. In addition, as noted above, the increase in hostility towards sexual minorities in Hungary is also pervasive throughout Hungarian society. I find that the claimant would not be able to escape persecution on the grounds of race or sexual orientation in any place within Hungary.

[13]     With respect to state protection, there is a presumption that the state is able to protect its nationals. Such a presumption can only be displaced on clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens. Such protection need not be perfect. Country condition reports for Hungary do indicate that the government has expressed a willingness to provide protection to all citizens. However, reports also suggest that this willingness has not necessarily translated into adequate protection. Reports say the hardening of anti-Roma attitudes in both the general population and state authorities in Hungary, corresponding to an increase in nationalist sentiment.

[14]     In many instances, authorities are unable or unwilling to protect Roma from extremist violence. The claimant’s own testimony is that he did contact the police about attacks and threats. The claimant testified that at times the police were dismissive, but that even when they were not, no arrests or further investigations were made. The claimant’s experience confirms — conforms to descriptions found in the National Documentation Package. Crimes against Roma may be reported, but ignored or dismissed without investigation. I find that given the claimant’s Roma ethnicity and sexual orientation, the claimant has established that in his case there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect him against persecution.

[15]     Based on the evidence before me and the testimony of the claimant, I conclude the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of race as well as the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, in this case sexual orientation, if he were to return to Hungary. The claimant is therefore a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His claim for protection is accepted. That concludes my reasons.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Citation: 2021 RLLR 89
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 13, 2021
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Adam Wawrzkiewicz
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC0-03571
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: These are my reasons. XXXX XXXX XXXX the claimant, seeks protection pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Mr. XXXX came to Canada with his spouse, XXXX (ph) XXXX, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. XXXX XXXX was found ineligible to have the claim heard by the Refugee Protection Division because she had made a prior claim for protection in 2001.

[2]       The allegations of the claim can be found in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form, and in his testimony. The claimant alleges a fear of persecution on the basis of race and membership in a particular social group at the hands of society in general, and from the former spouse of XXXX XXXX in particular.

[3]       The claimant alleges that should be return to Hungary, he would be subject to persecution in the form of denial of occupational opportunities on the basis of his Roma ethnicity. He would also be subject to persecution by being at increased risk of violence at the hands of nationalist gangs, of being at increased risk of harassment by police, and finally of being at increased risk of violence at the hands of XXXX former spouse.

[4]       At the outset of the hearing, I identified credibility of a major issue for the hearing to focus on. A second issue is whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the state was unable or unwilling to protect the claimant.

[5]       With respect to identity, on file at Exhibit 1 is a certified copy of the claimant’s passport. Other identification documents from Hungary can be found at Exhibit 4. In addition, the claimant has submitted a statement form the Roma Community Centre in Toronto, identifying the claimant as a member of the Roma community. For these documents and his testimony, the claimant has established his personal identity, his citizenship of Hungary, and his Roma ethnicity.

[6]       With respect to credibility. The claimant testified at the hearing, as did his spouse, XXXX XXXX. A claimant testifying under oath is presumed to be telling the truth unless there are valid reasons to disbelieve that testimony. In this case, I find no valid reason to reject the claimant’s testimony. My assessment of credibility takes into account the claimant’s level of education, as well as other social and cultural factors that may affect his testimony. I have also taken into account situational factors such as the stress of refugee proceedings and the difficulties of communication through an interpreter.

[7]       The claimant was straightforward in his testimony. There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions in his testimony, and the testimony was consistent with both his Basis of Claim form, and the testimony of the witness, XXXX XXXX. The claimant submitted documentation at Exhibit 4 that corroborates elements of his allegations related to the violence that the claimant has suffered at the hands of XXXX ex-spouse. The claimant testified that he has been denied educate — excuse me, employment opportunities because of his Roma ethnicity. He testified that his membership in the Roma community has made it difficult for him to get work, and he recounted and incident where Roma workers where refused payment for the work they had completed. When they complained to the employer, the employer taunted them saying that if they were unhappy, they should go to the police, because the police would not believe them, as they were Roma.

[8]       The claimant testified that he has suffered violence and harassment at the hands of police. He testified that in 2010, while trying to get medical help for his ill sister, the police stopped him, accused him of coming to town to steal, hit him, and made him leave town. The claimant testified that the police used anti-Roma racial epithets during that incident. The claimant testified that another incident of police harassment occurred in 2006. The police accosted the claimant and his spouse XXXX, accusing XXXX of being a prostitute and making anti-Roma comments. The claimant testified that in 2011, he was attacked by a nationalist gang on a streetcar. He was physically assaulted, and subject to anti Roma abuse and epithets before the gang forced him off the streetcar. The claimant testified that he did not feel that going to the police about this incident would be productive. His experience with the police had been negative to that day. The claimant testified that his fear of violence at the hands of right-wing extremists has become more acute after this incident, as such violence is now encouraged by politicians and police tend to turn a blind eye towards violence against the Roma community.

[9]       The claimant testified that XXXX former spouse attacked the claimant and XXXX in their home in 2016, injuring both of them with a broken beer bottle. Both the claimant and XXXX XXXX testified that they went to the police, but the police had told them that because they had chosen the Roma lifestyle, the police would not do anything to assist them. The claimant and XXXX XXXX testified that XXXX former spouse approached them again in 2019, while the claimant and XXXX were living at a shelter. XXXX former spouse threatened to kill them. The claimant and XXXX testified that the police again were reluctant to take a report or intervene, and that they were asked to leave the shelter as a result of this incident. The claimant testified that this incident was the impetus for his decision to flee Hungary and make a claim for protection in Canada.

[10]     The claimant submitted police record from XXXX XXXX time in Canada, showing that she had been the complainant in a member of incidents that resulted in charges against her former spouse. As noted, I find the claimant to be overall credible and his documentary evidence to support his allegations. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has suffered assault and harassment, both at the hands of police, and at the hands of right wring, nationalist gangs. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has been attacked and threated by XXXX former spouse. Finally, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has approached the police for protection against these attacks and threats, but that the police did not offer assistance or protection. I find that the claimant does fear future persecution based on his race, his Roma ethnicity, as well as his membership in a particular social group being the family member of a person subject to domestic violence.

[11]     Having found the claimant has a subjective fear of persecution, turn to the question of whether this fear has an objective basis. Items 13.5 and 13.6 of the national documentation package for Hungary, dated April 16th, 2021, support the claimant’s allegation that Roma in Hungary are subject to widespread discrimination in the field of employment, these Items also note that the Roma community is increasingly becoming victim to right wing nationalist violence in Hungary. Item 5.2 of the national documentation package for Hungary notes that Roma women are at increased risk of being subjected to gender-based domestic violence and have considerably fewer resources at their disposal to escape violence. This risk of violence is exacerbated by the poverty of many in the Roma community, as well as police reluctance to be responsive to complaints of domestic violence against Roma.

[12]     I conclude that the claimants do have an objective basis for their fear of persecution, and that their fear is well-founded.

[13]     With respect to state protection, the claimant testified that he does not believe that the police would be able to help him escape threats of violence from either gangs or from XXXX XXXX former husband. Again, Items 13.5 and 13.6 of the national documentation package for Hungary support the claimant’s testimony. Police will often take complaints against violence against Roma less seriously and not investigate violence against Roma complaints. These items in the national documentation package also note that anti Roma racism is pervasive throughout Hungarian society and is on the increase. This racism exists at the level of both the government and the police. While former protection against discrimination and violence are legislated, the reality is that the Roma community is substantially excluded from participating in many areas of Hungarian society and faces increasing levels of violence. I conclude that there is clear and convincing that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant against persecution.

[14]     With respect to whether the claimant has an internal flight alternative, given the pervasiveness of anti-Roma racism in Hungary, I find that there is no reasonable internal flight alternative within Hungary, particularly with respect to the claimant’s persecution on the basis of race.

[15]     Here is my conclusion. Based on the evidence before me, the testimony of the claimant, and the testimony of XXXX XXXX, I conclude that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention grounds of race and membership in a particular social group if he were to return to Hungary. And I am going to ask the interpreter to please interpret the next two sentences. The claimant is therefore a Convention refugee, pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His claim for protection is accepted.

[16]     CLAIMANT: Thank you very much.

[17]     MEMBER: Do you have any questions, sir?

[18]     CLAIMANT: They will send my wife back home?

[19]     MEMBER: That’s something you should probably talk about with your counsel.

[20]     CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[21]     UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much, thank you, thank you.

[22]     MEMBER: I’d like to thank you for answering all of my questions today. I know that it isn’t pleasant to remember some of the incidents you’ve talked about.

[23]     CLAIMANT: I thank you that you listened to me.

[24]     MEMBER: I’d like to thank Erin for being a witness in your claim. And I would like to express my appreciation to your counsel for representing you today, and finally to Madam Interpreter who made sure we could all understand each other.

[25]     INTERPRETER: Thank you, and hearing each other at some point, I’m really sorry about.

[26]     MEMBER: All right, so if that’s — unless there’s anything else, we can conclude the hearing.

[27]     INTERPRETER: Thank you very much, wishing you a good day, rest up a bit.

[28]     MEMBER: Before we do that, I just want to confirm that I have your address correction, because we will be mailing out the decision to you. The address I have is XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[29]     CLAIMANT: Yes.

[30]     MEMBER: And the postal code is XXXX XXXX XXXX

[31]     CLAIMANT: Yes.

[32]     MEMBER: Excellent. All right, so that’s everything, thank you again, please have a good rest of your day and stay safe.

[33]     INTERPRETER: Thank you very much.

[34]     MEMBER: Goodbye everybody.

[35]     INTERPRETER: Goodbye everyone.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Citation: 2021 RLLR 81
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 11, 2021
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter G Ivanyi
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC0-06678
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: Welcome back, everybody.  It is 4:30 p.m., and we are back on the record.  I am now prepared to deliver my decision and reasons for that decision in the matter of XXXX XXXX.

[2]       XXXX XXXX the claimant, is a citizen of Hungary. He seeks protection pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The claimant travelled to Canada with his wife. However, she is not part of this claim. As she made a previous claim for protection in Canada in 2012, she is not eligible to make a claim for protection now.

[3]       The allegations of this claim can be found in the claimant’s basis of claim form and in his testimony. The claimant fears persecution on the basis of race at the hands of society in general in Hungary, and right­ wing nationalist groups in Hungary in particular. The claimant alleges that if he were to return to Hungary, he would be subject to persecution in the form of denial of occupational opportunities on the basis of his Roma ethnicity, as well as persecution in the form of increased risk of violence, also on the basis of his Roma ethnicity.

[4]       At the outset of the hearing, I identified credibility as the primary issue for the hearing to focus on.

[5]       With respect to identity, on file at Exhibit 1 is a certified copy of the claimant’s passport from Hungary. At Exhibit 4 are other identification documents, as well as a letter from the Roma Community Centre of Toronto, dated February 25th, 2021, attesting to the claimant’s Roma ethnicity. Through these documents and the claimant’s testimony, the claimant has established his personal identity, his citizenship of Hungary, and his Roma ethnicity.

[6]       With respect to credibility, a claimant testified under oath is presumed to be telling the truth unless there exist valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony. In this case, I have no valid reason to reject the claimant’s testimony. The claimant left school in Grade 8, and my credibility assessment takes into account his level of education, as well as other social and cultural factors. I have also taken into account situation factors inherent in the stress of refugee proceedings, as well as any potential difficulties involved through communication with an interpreter.

[7]       The claimant was straightforward in his testimony. There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions in his testimony, and his testimony was generally consistent with his Basis of Claim form. The claimant submitted written documentation in Exhibit 4 in the form of medical reports as well as police reports that confirmed that the claimant, consistent with his testimony, had been the subject of assault and that he had reported these assaults to the police. In his testimony, the claimant was able to provide considerable detail in a spontaneous fashion regarding specific instances of harassment, discrimination, and violence mentioned in his basis of claim form. I find that overall, the claimant was a credible witness. The claimant testified he was denied educational opportunities while living in Hungary. He testified that he was segregated at school with other Roma students, and that he and the other Roma students at school were not allowed to participate in school trips or sports events. He testified that Roma students were often subject to abuse and violence at the hands of other students, and that complaints by Roma students and their parents would be dismissed by school officials

[8]       INTERPRETER: Sorry.

[9]       MEMBER: As noted above, I find the claimant to be a credible — I am sorry. I find the claimant’s testimony to be credible. I find on a balance of probability that the claimant did experience discrimination in education as a result of his Roma ethnicity. With respect to employment opportunities, the claimant testified that he had applied for a number of jobs while living in Hungary, only to find himself rejected once the employer found out about his Roma ethnicity. In his Basis of Claim form, the claimant described going to an employment centre in his home city of Miskolc to seek employment in January 2019. The claimant was told that there were no jobs available for Roma. I find on a balance of probability that the claimant has faced discrimination in employment as a result of his Roma ethnicity.

[10]     The claimant’s allegations are supported by country condition reports that outline discrimination in education and employment against members of the Roma community. While individual instances of discrimination do not necessarily constitute persecution, the effect of a cumulative pattern of discrimination in different contexts have been found by the Federal Court of Canada in a case called Ola (ph) v. Canada to constitute persecution, taking into account the individual effect on a claimant.

[11]     In the case of the claimant, the discrimination the claimant faces must be viewed in light of the violence that the claimant alleges he has suffered as a result of his Roma ethnicity. The claimant described a number of instances where he or his spouse personally suffered violence. These include an incident in March 2016, where the claimant and his wife were on the way to a movie when he was attacked by a group of men dressed in black clothes. The claimant testified that his assailants yelled anti-Roma slurs and told the claimant and his wife they did not belong in Hungary. The claimant described another incident in May 2019, when his pregnant wife was attacked by a group of men who knocked her to the ground, called her a “stinking gypsy”, and repeatedly kicked her. The claimant described a third incident that was the impetus for the claimant’s decision to leave Hungary. In December 2019, the claimant and his wife were attacked while shopping by a group of men armed with bats, chains, and knives. The claimant was stabbed in the hand defending himself. The claimant testified that his assailants yelled anti­ Roma slurs at himself.  At Exhibit 4, the claimant submitted documentary evidence of the medical attention needed and the specific injuries suffered during these attacks. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has suffered multiple instances of violence on the basis of his Roma ethnicity. I find that the cumulative effect of the discrimination suffered, and the violence experienced by the claimant does constitute persecution. I find the claimant does have a fear of persecution if the claimant were to return to Hungary.

[12]     With respect to whether there is an objective basis for this fear, Item 13.5 of the National Documentation Package for Hungary, dated September 1st, 2020, supports the claimant’s allegation that Roma in Hungary are subject to widespread discrimination in the field of education and employment. Item 13.14 of the National Documentation Package notes that attacks against Roma and other minorities by far-right and neo-Nazi militias are on the increase in Hungary. I conclude that the claimant has an objective basis for his fear of persecution.

[13]     With respect to state protection, the claimant testified that he does not believe the police would be able to help him escape the threat of violence. The claimant testified he has reported each of the incidents he has described to the police, and none have resulted in any arrests. Item 13.6 of the National Documentation Package for Hungary supports the claimant’s allegation that the state cannot protect victims of assault directed against the Roma community. Although Hungary may have formal legal protection against hate­ motivated violence, Item 13.6 cites Amnesty International to conclude that Roma continue to be inadequately protected against hate crimes and that the police response to such crimes is generally not adequate. I conclude that the evidence in the National Documentation Package indicates that the claimant could not reasonably expect to receive state protection against persecution.

[14]     With respect to whether the claimant had an internal flight alternative within Hungary, the country condition reports mentioned above highlight the pervasiveness of anti-Roma racism throughout the country. I find that the claimant has no reasonable internal flight alternative within Hungary.

[15]     My conclusion is this: based on the evidence before me and the testimony of the claimant, I conclude that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of race if he were to return to Hungary.  The claimant is therefore a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His claim for protection is accepted.

[16]     That concludes my reasons. Sir, do you have any questions?

[17]     CLAIMANT: No, I don’t have – I don’t have questions

[18]     MEMBER: All right. I would like to thank you for answering all of my questions today. I know that answering some of them may have brought back difficult memories. I would like to thank your counsel for his representation of you today, and I would like to thank the interpreter for making sure we could all understand each other.

[19]     If there is nothing else, we can conclude the hearing.

[20]     COUNSEL: There’s nothing from us. Congratulations, Mr. XXXX.

[21]     Thank you, Laslo.

[22]     INTERPRETER: Thank you very much. Congratulations as well.

[23]     MEMBER: Thank you, everybody. Please stay safe and have a good rest of your evening.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2020 RLLR 54
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 21, 2020
Panel: Hazelyn Ross
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Marko Vitorovich
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TB0-11379
Associated RPD Number(s): TB0-11378, TB0-11380, TB0-11381
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000159-000170

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is a redetermination of the claim for Convention refugee protection made by [XXX], principal claimant, [XXX] (wife), [XXX], (minor claimant), and [XXX]. The claimants are citizens of Hungary who seek protection in Canada pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)¹ on the basis of their Roma ethnicity.

[2]       Their claims for protection were initially heard jointly with those of the [XXX] family and a decision rendered in 2011. On an application for judicial review, Hughes, J. returned the matter to the Board for redetermination, on the ground that the Refugee Protection Division (the RPD) had made erroneous credibility findings and had failed to deal adequately with the issue of state protection. Hughes, J. also ordered that the claims of the two families be severed.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The claimants rely on the allegations in the narrative portion of the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim, (BOC)². The following is a summary of those allegations.

•           That they are Roma, and readily recognised as such by their physical appearance and mode of dress;

•           They have suffered severe discrimination and harassment in their native Hungary, which discrimination and harassment started in school and has been lifelong;

•           They have been abused by the Hungarian police with the harassment growing worse during the 1990’s;

•           Hungarian Guard and skinheads attack them and other Roma frequently;

•           During an attack on [XXX] 1995, the wife was beaten so severely that she [XXX];

•           In the fall of 1996 a group of 4-5 skinheads attacked the principal claimant at his home. The attackers dragged him outside, where they beat him. They set fire to his home. They also beat his neighbours. The claimants went to the police but were told that the police would not help;

•           While the atmosphere was calmer during the 2000’s, between [XXX] 2005 and [XXX] 2009, the claimants were victims of a number of anti-Roma incidents. Their family members and friends were also victims of anti-Roma discrimination and violence. The principal claimant was kept naked in a cell for three days.

•           In [XXX] 2006, police arrested and detained the principal claimant on suspicion of theft as he was going to visit his wife after she had [XXX]. The police accused him of stealing the items he was taking to her. He was detained for three days. When he was released, he was asked whether he wished to file a complaint against the arresting officers. He provided the badge numbers of the officers who arrested and interrogated him, but was told that those badge numbers did not exist.

•           In [XXX] 2009, the wife and the principal claimant were returning home from a movie when the police stopped them for an identification check. The wife was let go, but the principal claimant was again detained for three days. His clothes were taken from him and he was kept naked for the entire three days. He was beaten during the first night and interrogated over the next two days of his detention, all with the intention of making him confess to crimes. When he was released, he was asked whether he wanted to make a complaint about his detention, however, when he said he wanted to, the officer asked him to consider it carefully as they [the police] would look into his family (a veiled threat).

•           The claimants made the decision to leave Hungary in [XXX] 2009, but before they could do so, they were victims of several serious incidents. On [XXX], 2010 Hungarian Guards attacked the wife and her mother while they were in town. The wife suffered injury to her head, arms, and legs. When they tried to make a complaint, the officer on duty accused the principal claimant of beating the wife and ordered the claimants to leave the police station.

•           In [XXX] 2009, Hungarian Guards violently invaded the claimants’ home, forcing them to flee. The Guards tried to set fire to the home, but the claimants re-entered the home and were able to douse the fire before it could spread.

•           All attempts to seek police protection proved futile, as each and every time they turned to the police, the police refused to assist them.

DETERMINATION

[4]       For the following reasons, the panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees.

ANALYSIS

The Claimant’s Evidence

[5]       At the hearing, both adult claimants gave extensive oral testimony about the major incidents that prompted them to leave Hungary. They testified that they are readily identified as Roma persons by their physical appearance. As a result, the wife has been subjected to numerous random attacks while out on the street, which attacks she blamed on the reluctance of the white Hungarian population to accept the Roma. The principal claimant testified that he is readily identified as a Roma person by the shape of his face, his large nose and the colour of his skin. As a result, he has had trouble finding work and was attacked at least twice a month. He spoke of mistrust when he was out in the public sphere that culminated in him being falsely arrested and accused of theft in [XXX] 2006.

[6]       When she was asked what prompted the family to leave Hungary, the wife responded that the turning point was the home invasion of [XXX] 2009.

The Major Incidents

[7]       In assessing the wife’s oral testimony about the major incidents in the claim, the panel finds that overall her testimony was not credible and trustworthy because much of that testimony was exaggerated or unsubstantiated. This was particularly true of her testimony respecting her experience with the medical field.

The Wife’s Experiences with the medical system

[8]       The wife submitted medical reports that show that she had [XXX]. She alleged that the only reason she had the [XXX] was because the doctor who performed the previous [XXX] was negligent. She attributed his alleged negligence to her Roma ethnicity. She testified that he was silent when she confronted him with his negligence. The wife interpreted the doctor’s silence as proof that she was correct in her assumptions.

[9]       The panel gives little weight to this part of the wife’s testimony because it is internally inconsistent and contradicted by the medical reports she submitted. The medical report shows that the wife suffered from [XXX] and underwent [XXX] to address her condition. The first was in [XXX] 2000; and the second in 2006. The 2006 [XXX] was required because her condition had returned.³ When the panel gave the wife the opportunity to respond to the content of the medical reports, she asserted that she had only [XXX]. This response is inconsistent with her earlier testimony that she had [XXX] for the same condition, one of which was unnecessary and was entirely due to the doctor’s negligence and anti-Roma sentiment, a position she maintained throughout the hearing.

[10]     The panel is not an expert in any discipline of medicine, therefore, it is unable to attribute, as the wife did, that the [XXX] in 2006 was a) unnecessary, and b) occasioned only by the doctor’s racism. Further, given the inconsistency between the medical report and the wife’ s assertions that there were [XXX]; and her later denial that there had been a [XXX], the panel finds that her allegations that the doctor was negligent in his treatment of her condition because he harbored racist sentiment towards the Roma are neither credible nor trustworthy.

[11]     The wife also alleged medical misconduct when she gave [XXX]. She claimed that the staff forced her to [XXX], when, due to her prior [XXX], she was supposed to [XXX] section. She testified that she brought this to the staff’s attention, who ignored her. Instead the medical staff performed tests designed to [XXX] and forced her to [XXX] “then and there’. In her view, the medical personnel did not act in a professional way and wanted her to suffer because she was Roma.

[12]     For the following reasons, the panel rejects these allegations. The medical report regarding this event lists the following diagnosis: [XXX]

[13]     The medical report regarding this event sets out the circumstances of the wife’s [XXX] as:

“she got registered into our department following the [XXX] and the [XXX] got organised at [XXX] with a [XXX]. In regards to the previous [XXX] removal, to the [XXX] that is involved into the [XXX] and the prolonged period of time the [XXX] was completed with [XXX]; as a result of which a [XXX] without any complications … “⁴

[14]     The panel interpreted this portion of the medical report to be saying that the wife went into [XXX]. That she suffered from [XXX] and that due to additional medical complications relating to her previous [XXX] and the length of [XXX], a decision was made to [XXX]. When the panel gave the wife the opportunity to respond to its interpretation of the medical report, she reiterated her claim that, due to her Roma ethnicity, the medical personnel forced her to [XXX] over her protestations. She maintained that as she was present at the time she was in a good position to assess how the staff acted towards her. In response to her counsel, she testified that during the [XXX] she was diagnosed with [XXX] and that her doctor had told her that it would be better for her to have a [XXX] so that they do not burst.

[15]     While not disputing the wife’s subjective appreciation of the attitude of the medical staff, the panel is unable to find, as she suggested, that anti-Roma racism was the reason for the medical actions that were taken. It is clear that the wife felt that because of her earlier [XXX] she could not or should not have to [XXX]. No objective medical evidence was provided on this point, and, without additional information, the panel is unable to find, as the wife asserts, that the medical decisions taken by the staff were motivated solely by anti-Roma racism. The panel gives little weight to the wife’s testimony regarding the medical treatment she received when [XXX].

The October 2009 Home Invasion

[16]     The claimants allege that in [XXX] 2009 Hungarian Guards entered their home in an unprovoked attack. The wife testified that they entered through the window. As the Guards came in, the family fled through the back door. She testified that as they fled, she looked back. She noticed that the Guards were not following them and were, in fact, leaving. The family returned to the house and on entering noticed that the Guards had started a fire using some of the family’s clothing. They put the fire out. The principal claimant corroborated the wife’s account but added that the fire did not spread because the Guards had used their damp clothes to start the fire.

[17]     While the description of the attack aligns with the claimants’ general allegations as well as with the claims of Roma claimants, generally, for the following reasons the panel finds that the claimants’ account of the incident is not credible and trustworthy.

[18]     According to the claimants the incident was relatively brief. The Guards came in through the window, the claimants fled through the back door, the Guards started a fire; they left and the claimants returned home. The panel is not prepared to accept that the Guards would use damp clothes to start a fire; even, if they did, the panel is not prepared to accept that their attempt would yield a fire that the claimants would be forced to put out. The panel is of the view that this is not what could reasonably be expected in those circumstances and, therefore, the credibility of the claimants’ testimony regarding the [XXX] 2009 home invasion is seriously undermined. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the alleged home invasion did not occur.

The Other Incidents

[19]     The claimants alleged that following an attack on [XXX] 1995 the wife suffered a [XXX] as a result of the injuries she received. No independent evidence was put forward that could link the alleged [XXX] to an attack by Hungarian guards. Further, the wife’s testimony about the [XXX] mises concerns that the panel has not been able to resolve in her favour. She testified that while she went to the hospital because she felt pain, the only procedure that was carried out was a [XXX] that she testified was done at her urging. She received no other medical treatment, even though the doctor told her that the [XXX].

[20]     The panel finds that, notwithstanding the allegation that Roma women are routinely discriminated against in hospital, the events described by the wife are not in keeping with what might reasonably be expected where a [XXX] woman attends hospital complaining of with abdominal pain. Given that a [XXX] was in fact performed, the panel is not persuaded that the wife received discriminatory treatment amounting to persecution when she [XXX].

The [XXX] 2010 Incident

[21]     The claimants alleged that shortly before the wife came to Canada, Hungarian Guards attacked her and her mother. This incident allegedly took place on [XXX] 2010. The wife claimed to have suffered injury to her arms and legs. She testified that she received no assistance from either the police or the doctors. Photographs of her bruises were tendered as part of Exhibit 11⁵. The wife testified that the Immigration Officer who interviewed them advised her to take the photographs. The photographs were the only supporting documentation respecting the alleged incident. The panel is aware of the presumption of truthfulness that attaches to the wife’s sworn testimony, however, in light of its prior credibility findings, and absent any supporting documents that originated in Hungary, the panel is unable to draw any inferences or make any findings regarding the injuries and the alleged incident because the photographs cannot tell the circumstances under which the injuries were sustained.

[22]     While the panel does not dispute that the wife, as a Roma person, has experienced discriminatory treatment in Hungary, given the credibility concerns that the panel has not been able to resolve in her favour, the panel finds that the wife has not met her onus to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she faces a serious possibility of persecution if returned to Hungary. The panel finds that the wife is not a Convention refugee. For the same reason, the panel finds that she has not established that she is a person in need of protection.

The Principal Claimant

[23]     The principal claimant testified that he was readily identified as a Roma person by his appearance, specifically his large nose. The panel places little reliance on this claim, nonetheless, it finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant’s association with his wife and her family and residence in a Roma area would likely cause him to be perceived as being Roma, which in turn leaves him open to the type of discriminatory treatment accorded to Roma persons in Hungary. Having made this finding, the panel examined the principal claimant’s allegations of persecution. His allegations centred around two incidents. In both incidents the police arrested and detained him for seventy-two hours before releasing him without charge. The documentary evidence indicates that this is common practice in Hungary.

[24]     The first incident occurred in 2006, shortly after the wife [XXX]. The principal claimant testified that he was on his way to the hospital to visit her. He was taking her some supplies she needed, things like shampoo and sanitary napkins. On his way to the hospital the police stopped him. The officers accused him of stealing the items, a charge he denied. The police took him to the police station, where he was detained for seventy-two hours before being released without charges. During this period the police questioned and beat the principal claimant. For the three days he was detained, his family did not know where he was.

[25]     The second incident occurred in [XXX] 2009. The principal claimant testified that when the police arrested him, they told him that they were looking for him because he was charged with theft. At the police station he was stripped of his clothes, and in his words “given dirty rags”. But for these rags he was naked. He remained naked throughout the three days of his detention. The principal claimant testified that he was humiliated during the three days he was detained stating that “it was unnatural the way they humiliated me”. Asked to explain what he meant he replied that he did not want to do in front of the female claimants. Later on he would testify that since coming to Canada and finding work here, he feels like a man again.

[26]     The principal claimant was rather emotional while he was giving this testimony, however, he would not elaborate on his experience during detention. He testified that in 2013 he was assessed by a [XXX], who recommended that he join a support group and that he could benefit from [XXX].⁶ In fact, the principal claimant was found to have a score of [XXX].⁷ The principal claimant testified that he did not follow up on these treatment recommendations largely because of financial difficulty. Nonetheless, he testified that if returned to Hungary he would likely break down again.

[27]     While the panel is cautious of medical [XXX] reports that state that the only way that claimants can recover from their [XXX] and other health issues is for them to remain in Canada, it found that the principal claimant presented his testimony, which centred mainly on these two incidents and an incident in a public park, in a straightforward manner and without any seeming attempt at subterfuge. For this reason, the panel accepts the finding of the [XXX] that the principal claimant has suffered or [XXX], which likely stems from his experiences while detained.

[28]     Further, based on the principal claimant’s demeanour while testifying about the second detention, the panel accepts that he was mistreated as he alleged. The documentary evidence indicates that Roma persons are often mistreated while they are in custody.⁸ Given these statements in the documentary evidence, the panel’s findings respecting his perceived Roma identity as well as the principal claimant’s testimony respecting the mistreatment he received at the hands of the police, the panel finds that, if returned to Hungary, there is a serious possibility that the police would continue to arrest and harass the principal claimant. Further, the panel finds that such continued harassment is treatment that would amount to persecution.

State Protection

[29]     As the police are the agents of persecution, the panel finds that it is not likely that state protection would be available to the principal claimant. For these reasons, the panel finds that he is a Convention refugee.

The Minor Claimant

[30]     On the behalf of the minor claimant it was advanced by both the adult claimants and their counsel that he would be persecuted if he were to return to Hungary. They posited that the minor claimant would be denied adequate schooling and that he would suffer the same discriminatory treatment that all Roma face in Hungary. Segregated schooling for Roma children is well documented.⁹ However, this is not a situation that the now [XXX] years old minor claimant has ever faced, and there was little persuasive evidence before the panel that the minor claimant who has had the benefit of being educated in the Ontario school system will likely face segregated schooling if returned to Hungary.

[31]     It was also argued that the minor claimant was not sufficiently proficient in the Hungarian language to allow him to attend a Hungarian school. The panel is not persuaded by this argument because there was no independent evidence of the minor claimant’s proficiency in the Hungarian language put before it that could allow the panel to make such a conclusion. What is evident is that he is reliant on his parents for support. The panel has already found that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee and by virtue of family membership and his dependency on the principal claimant, the panel finds that the minor claimant is also a Convention refugee.

[XXX]

[32]     [XXX] is the wife’s mother. She claims to have experienced lifelong discrimination and harassment in Hungary. She relies on the principal claimant’s narrative, which states that she was with the wife on [XXX] 2010 when Guardists attacked them. Unlike the wife, no photographs were tendered to support this claim. The panel has already found that there was insufficient credible evidence before it to allow it to find that Guardists attacked the wife on [XXX] 2010 and for the same reasons it is unable to find that [XXX] was also attacked on that date.

[33]     In so far as [XXX] relies on the claims of the principal claimant, the panel’s adverse credibility findings respecting these claims also apply to her. The panel is aware that, as a Roma person in Hungary and as indicated in the documentary evidence, [XXX] likely faced many acts of discrimination during her lifetime. Nonetheless, she has not put forward sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to allow the panel to conclude that the acts of discrimination had risen to the level of persecution. For this reason the panel finds that she has not made out her claim to be a Convention refugee.

Family Membership

[34]     Notwithstanding, its findings respecting the wife, and [XXX] the panel considered whether there is a serious possibility that they would face persecution as family members of the principal claimant. It has concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, they are likely to do so because of the targeting of the principal claimant by the police in their neighbourhood. Accordingly, the panel finds that the wife, the minor claimant, and [XXX] are Convention refugees.

CONCLUSION

[35]     [XXX] claimed protection in Canada pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA on the basis of their Roma ethnicity. Having considered their claims, the Refugee Protection Division finds that they are Convention refugees.

[36]     Pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, their claims are accepted.

(signed)           H. Ross

July 21, 2020

¹ The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim forms (BOC).
³ Exhibit 15, p. 55.
⁴ Exhibit 15, p. 61.
⁵ Exhibit 11.
⁶ Exhibit 12.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Exhibit 6, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Hungary, version 31 March 2020, Item 2.1.
⁹ Ibid.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 60
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 14, 2019
Panel: M. Somers
Counsel for the claimant(s): John W. Grice
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TB8-09172
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-09218, TB8-09231, TB9-11 756
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000145-000150

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: The Board is prepared to render a decision orally based on the testimony of the claimants, as well as, other documentary evidence that has been filed in this matter.

[2]       The claimants, a family, the principal claimant, [XXX] (the principal claimant), his wife, [XXX] (wife) and their minor daughter, [XXX] (daughter) and the principal claimant’s mother …

[3]       Did I get something wrong, Madame Interpreter, the names?

[4]       INTERPRETER: [XXX] is the wife, the common-law wife.

[5]       MEMBER: Okay. Thank you.

[6]       INTERPRETER: [XXX] is the daughter.

[7]       MEMBER: Thank you and we’ve got … they never put these things in the right order.

[8]       So, the mother is, [XXX].

[9]       So, that it’s clear, the claimants are a family, husband/wife, mother/father, their minor daughter and the principal claimant’s mother. They are all citizens of Hungary.

[10]     They have all made refugee protection claims under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[11]     The principal claimant has been designated as the representative for his minor daughter in this matter.

[12]     The Board has taken into consideration the Board’s guidelines for minor claimants in the determination of the daughter’s claim.

[13]     In addition, the Board has taken into consideration the Chairperson’s Gender Guidelines in the determination of the claims for the principal claimant’s wife, the principal claimant’s mother, the principal claimant’s daughter.

Allegations

[14]     The specifics of the claim are stated in the principal claimant’s narrative, as well as, the principal claimant’s mother’s narrative, that are found in their Basis of Claim Form (BOC).

[15]     They allege the following:

[16]     They are Hungarian citizens whose ethnicity is Roma.

[17]     They fear to return to Hungary as they believe that they will be persecuted based on their ethnicity. They claim that they have been harassed, discriminated, threatened and assaulted due to their ethnicity.

[18]     They claim that there’s systematic discrimination against the Roma in Hungary.

[19]     In addition, they fear the actions of extremists, nationalists and members of the Jobbik Party in Hungary and in general, racist attitudes of the population as a whole.

[20]     They maintain that the police in Hungary have a discriminatory attitude towards members of the Roma community and would not adequately protect them or other members of the Roma community.

[21]     The principal claimant, his wife and child, left Hungary on or about [XXX], 2018. The principal claimant’s mother left on [XXX], 2019.

[22]     When they entered Canada, they made claims for refugee protection soon thereafter.

Determination

[23]     The Board finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA.

[24]     The Board’s reasons are as follows:

Analysis

[25]     The Board was concerned with the issues of credibility and state protection.

Identity and Credibility

[26]     The Board was satisfied with the personal identity of the claimants, that is, the personal identity of the claimants and that they were or are Hungarian citizens based on certified copies of their passport, as well as, other secondary identification documents filed.

[27]     In respect to the claimants’ ethnicity, that of being a Roma, the Board is satisfied that they are Roma based on the testimony of the claimants, as well as, a few secondary identification documents filed on their behalf. As such, the Board accepts that all claimants’ ethnicity is that of a Roma.

[28]     In the hearing, most of the evidence, most of the testimonies, was given by the principal claimant. The principal claimant’s mother did testify for a brief moment, as well. Overall, the Board found that the testimony of both witnesses were credible and reliable.

[29]     The principal claimant testified that he believed that the discriminatory attitude towards Roma was what at best could be described as, widespread. In fact, it would not be far fetched to state that he believed that it was 100%, that all non-Roma are discriminatory and act on that discriminatory basis towards a minority community that he belongs to, the Roma in Hungary.

[30]     The Board has carefully reviewed the country condition articles, reports, filed by both Counsel and the Refugee Protection Division. The Board notes that many of the documents, particularly found in the National Documentation Package, are from independent, reputable, international human rights organizations, as well as, reports from state agencies, departments from well-respected Western democracies such as Canada itself, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

[31]     It would be fair to say that, the vast majority of information in these country conditions articles and reports, substantiates, supports the claimants’ testimony and allegations found in their narrative in their claim that there is a long history of discrimination towards the Roma community by the general Hungarian society, by the government, by its security apparatus.

[32]     The country conditions articles clearly describes discrimination as widespread. As noted, the principal claimant believes 100% of the population is discriminatory. I’m not sure the documentary evidence states that but it does state that it is widespread.

[33]     In its determination of whether the claimants are Convention refugees or not, the Board has to determine whether the claimants have been persecuted in the past or if they were to return, would they be persecuted as opposed to just being discriminated against?

[34]     The Board notes that there is jurisprudence that states for a matter to be considered persecution that the mistreatment suffered or anticipated by a claimant must be serious. The approach that is used by the courts is and approved by the courts, is equated to a notion of a denial of a core human right.

[35]     The documentary evidence indicates that – and will be discussed later on in this decision – that the Roma, members of the Roma communities are discriminated on a continuous basis on all facets of their life from education, employment, health services, accommodation.

[36]     The Board finds that if the claimants were to return to Hungary that they would have a well­ founded fear of persecution.

[37]     The information found in the documentary evidence acknowledges that Hungary has taken steps to improve in the moderating of the rights of the Roma in Hungary. It has maintained a Roma Council bringing in members from different facets of society to ensure that the Roma population in Hungary is not discriminated or abused.

[38]     Nevertheless, the sources clearly indicate that both government and non-government policies for Roma integration has not been implemented.

[39]     The documentary evidence indicates that there are grave problems regarding poverty in the Roma community in Hungary, in particular, child poverty. Many of the reports, particularly from the European Union, from the UN, have not been implemented.

[40]     The annual reports from the United States State Department Reports on Human Rights Practices in Hungary, each year indicates that discrimination continues to significantly limit Roma from access to education, employment, health services and social services.

[41]     The U.S. reports every year indicates that there is a racist attitude perpetrated by the police force against this particular ethnic community.

[42]     Some of the statistics mentioned in the documentary evidence are shocking. For example, 80% of the Roma aged between 15 and 64, have not completed more than 8 years of primary education, compared to 20% among non-Roma and of those Roma, 16% did not finish primary school at all while 63% completed primary school without going on to secondary school. The comparable figures for non­ Roma Hungarians are I% and 90%, respectively.

[43]     The discrepancy narrows among those students who study vocational and trade schools, 15% of Roma versus 25% of non-Roma completed vocational programs.

[44]     The unemployment rate between the Roma and non-Roma Hungarians are significant.

[45]     The Board does acknowledge that the Hungarian government has expressed the willingness to provide protection to all of its citizens. The government has made commitments to the European Union to make efforts to improve the conditions of its minority citizens, including the Roma.

[46]     However, the Federal Court of Canada has held on a number of occasions, that good intentions alone to protect and improve the plight of the Roma in Hungary are not enough. There is a general jurisprudence that states that, having legislation that protects its nationals but is not implemented at all while its nationals are being deprived of core human rights, does not amount to adequate state protection.

[47]     As such, the Board finds that he Hungarian government and its police are unable to provide adequate state protection to its Roma citizens, at this time.

[48]     As such, based on case law, the Board finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

[49]     Although not an issue, I would mention internal flight alternative. The Board finds that the country condition articles and reports indicate that the discrimination and harassment and hostile attitudes of the Hungarian population, of the Hungarian government, of the poor services provided by police to this minority group, is systematically widespread and as such, there is no viable IFA available to the claimants should they return to Hungary.

Conclusion

[50]     Based on this brief analysis, the Board finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and accepts their claims.

[51]     This hearing is over.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 55
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 11, 2019
Panel: William T. Short
Counsel for the claimant(s): Kristina Cooke
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TB8-04266
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000104-000107

DECISION

[1]       On February 11, 2019, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claim of [XXX], who claims refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). On that same day, the panel rendered its oral positive decision and Reasons for decision. This is the written version of the oral decision and Reasons that have been edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax with added references to the documentary evidence and relevant case law where appropriate.

[2]       This is the positive decision with respect to the matter of TB8-04266 of [XXX]. He is a citizen of Hungary of Roma descent, and claims to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to the provisions of 96 and Subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act¹ on account of his Roma heritage.

[3]       The claimant has asserted that he was subjected to severe and chronic societal and economic discrimination in Hungary because of his Roma ethnicity. He was further attacked on one particular occasion by some so-called “skinheads,” and the police who were called did not seem very interested in protecting this fellow.

[4]       For a more complete and detailed examination or recital of his allegations, one can regard the narrative portion of his Basis of Claim (BOC) Form,² which has been taken into evidence as Exhibit 2.

[5]       The claimant’s assertions are in keeping with country documents with respect to the plight of the Roma in Hungary. If one were to look at Item 13.5 in the document package, this is Response to Information Request and it is HUN 105586.E and it is dated August 18th, 2016. It says:

Sources indicate that Roma in Hungary face discrimination ‘in all fields of life,’ including education, housing, employment, health care and political participation. The Hungarian Ombudsman reports that the”[d]isadvantageous social conditions of Roma is aggravated by discrimination especially in the field of education, health, employment, housing and access to services.” According to their 2016 annual report, the office, of the Ombudsman notes that Roma complainants “most often talk about prejudices present in society, discriminative treatment as well as severe social and accommodation problems.”³ [footnotes omitted]

[6]       It goes on to quote the country reports of the United States State Department of State for 2015 that “states that unemployment rates for Roma are 3-5 times higher than for non-Roma.”⁴ [footnotes omitted]

[7]       “In addition, 78.1 percent of Roma experienced “severe material deprivation in 2014… “⁵ and this is in severe contrast to the rest of the population.

[8]       I am also looking at Item 2.1 in the document package which is Hungary: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, and that’s again the DOS, it’s dated April 23rd, 2018.

According to the EC’s Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-16) one-third of Roma lived in households with no toilet, shower or bathroom….

In January the ECHR ruled that police failed to provide adequate protection to two Romani individuals who were attacked with stones and bottles during a demonstration by Jobbik and paramilitary groups in Devecser in 2012 or to conduct a proper investigation of the incident.

In February the Supreme Court ruled that local police in Gyongyospata had discriminated against the local Romani community in 2011 by failing to protect them against harassment by extremist groups.⁶

[9]       Then going on to Item 2.5, which is a United Nations Human Rights Report, it has:

… stated that in recent years, Roma had increasingly been victims of displays of intolerance, hostility and racially motivated violence.” [It was recommended] inter alia that Hungary take resolute measures to combat all forms of intolerance, including in political discourse and take further steps to effectively prevent, investigate and sanction all forms of discrimination by members of the police force. HHC recommended that Hungary take measures to combat ethnic profiling by the police affecting the Roma⁷.  [footnotes omitted]

[10]     This speaks to the fact that this young man was continually stopped and asked for identification by the police.

[11]     In Response to Information Request, HUN106145.E, which is 10.1, dated August 17th, 2018, it says;

A 2018 report by the UN Human Rights Committee indicates that in Hungary there is a “prevalence of hate crimes and … hate speech targeting minorities,” including Roma, and states that “police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech … Minority Rights Group …  reports that Roma face a “continued hostility” from police forces in Hungary, which includes a “failure to protect” them from attacks⁸. [footnotes omitted]

[12]     It goes on and on.

[13]     I am of the view that the country materials disclose that the Hungarian State does not offer effective protection to the Roma minority from hate crimes.

[14]     One of the other pieces of material cited says that the police have a habit of not citing hate crimes as hate crimes upon the due process, they simply process as ordinary criminal offences.⁹

[15]     The information I have before me indicates that the Roma are subjected to terrible societal discrimination in Hungary, they are subjected to hate crimes on an ongoing basis, they are subjected to harassment by the police, and the Hungarian State through the police force has totally failed to protect these people and for that reason, the claimant I find to be totally credible.

[16]     The claimant has a claim that he is, among other things, a Convention refugee because of his ethnicity, which is a connection or a nexus to a Convention ground.

[17]     Therefore, I find that the allegations of fact made by the claimant in his oral testimony today and in his written narrative are, on the balance of probabilities, true and for the reasons previously stated, the officials and authorities in his own country have failed to protect him. That in my humble opinion makes him a Convention refugee.

[18]     I find that he is a Convention refugee and his claim is hereby accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC) TB8-04266, received March 5, 2018.
³ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Hungary (August 31, 2018), Item 13.5, at pp. 2-3.
⁴ Ibid., at p. 2.
⁵ Ibid., at p. 3.
⁶ Ibid., Item 2.1, at pp. 35-36.
⁷ Ibid., Item 2.5, at para. 11.
⁸ Ibid., Item 10.1, at p. 1.
⁹ Ibid.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 50
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 14, 2019
Panel: S. Eng
Counsel for the claimant(s): John A Salam
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TB7-23388
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-23443, TB7-23444, TB7-23445, TB7-23460
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000069-000073

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the claims of principal claimant [XXX]; her three children [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]; along with her common-law partner [XXX]; in RPD File Numbers TB7-23388, TB7-23443, TB7-23444, TB7-23445 and TB7-23460.

[2]       The claimants are citizens of Hungary and they are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       The facts and events alleged in support of their claims are set out in their respective Basis of Claim Forms. In summary, the claimants allege persecution in Hungary on the basis of their ethnic Roma identity.

[4]       The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees within the meaning of Section 96 of the IRPA.

[5]       The claimants’ identities were established as citizens of Hungary through their passports and the passports which were seized by CBSA. The panel is therefore satisfied that the claimants have met their burden and established their identities.

[6]       Based on its consideration of the totality of the evidence including the claimants’ testimonies, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants are ethnic Roma. The principal claimant was the only claimant that testified at the hearing. The panel finds that the claimant testified in a straightforward fashion with regard to the central element of her claim.

[7]       The panel finds that the claimant’s overall testimony was credible and accepts on a balance of probabilities that she has faced discrimination that would rise to the level of persecution and would continue to face a serious possibility of persecution on a forward-looking basis should the claimants return to Hungary.

[8]       In their Basis of Claim Forms and in the principal claimant’s testimony, the claimant provided in detail regarding a number of incidences of discrimination in Hungary which the panel would summarise.

[9]       The claimant has around a grade [XXX] education, which she testified was the result of discriminatory attitudes towards Roma students in school and was not able to continue.

[10]     The claimant testified how her three children also experienced discrimination in school because of their Roma ethnicity. The claimant testified about housing problems in Hungary and visits from the Children’s Aid Society in Hungary. The claimant testified how unpaid debts led to the water and electricity being disconnected to the house and a visit from the Children’s Aid Society over the conditions with her children.

[11]     The claimant had testified how she had moved into this house which was her ex-husband’s around the year 2000. The claimant testified how after the visit from Children’s Aid Society, she moved into a side cabin by her parent’s house and also talked about her divorce from her ex-husband around the same time. The claimant testified about the side cabin not having proper running water or bathroom facilities.

[12]     She indicated how the Children’s Aid Society came to see her again and that she had to move in with the parents of her current common-law partner. The claimant testified how the Children’s Aid Society followed up with another visit and indicated that that house was too small for her and all the children to live in. The claimant described how she tried to find housing to rent but was turned away due to the number of children she had and also because of her Roma ethnicity. Claimant testified about the Children’s Aid Society threatening to take away her children and that being the main reason for fleeing Hungary.

[13]     The claimant also testified about her attempts to obtain employment, but how she was only able to find temporary work under the table because of her Roma identity.

[14]     The claimant spoke about not receiving proper medical treatment and suffering from an infection from a caesarean section delivery.

[15]     The claimant also testified about her common-law partner and her son being attacked by ultranationalist Hungarians by bus stop. The panel found the claimant’s testimonies to be credible and lacking in embellishment.

[16]     The panel did have concerns regarding the claimant’s testimony regarding the auction of her ex­ husband’s house after their divorce, which the claimant would have been entitled to half of the profits of the sale. The claimant testified that she did not know what happened to the house after speaking to the executor and whether it had been auctioned off. The claimant did not follow up again about the matter despite having the phone number and address for the person responsible for this sale, and did not provide any further documentation regarding the proceedings and sale of the house.

[17]     The panel finds the claimant’s testimony regarding the sale not credible as the panel finds the claimant would have sought further information on profits that she would have or might have been able to receive or even to further establish this claim. However, the panel finds that the concerns with the auction or sale of the house do not negate the panel’s other findings where the testimony and evidence were persuasive in showing that the claimants have experienced serious, systemic and repetitive discrimination.

[18]     The panel finds cumulatively that the discrimination the claimants faced including in areas of education, employment, housing and health care, that they have experienced discrimination rising to the level of persecution in Hungary.

[19]     There is also evidence to suggest State protection has not been adequately available to the claimants. The country documentation for Hungary is broadly consistent with what the claimant has indicated will happen to them. The National Documentation Package for Hungary indicates that Roma experienced widespread discrimination in housing, employment, education and treatment and accessing health care. Based on the claimant’s testimony, the panel finds that there has been systematic societal discrimination against the claimants being Roma which affected their access to adequate education, health care and employment.

[20]     Regarding State protection, though Hungary is a functioning democracy and is a member of State of the European Union and though the documentary evidence tells me that Hungary is attempting to make changes to improve the situation for Roma, serious problems remain today.

[21]     Based on these country conditions and based on the claimant’s testimony, which the panel has found to be credible, the panel is satisfied that State protection would neither be adequate or forthcoming. There are multiple instances recorded of Roma individuals seeking protection and being subjected to racist or discriminatory actions by police. The panel finds that claimant’s own actions and failing to seek out State protection are reasonably explained.

[22]     The panel also finds that there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimants as the problems of discrimination and the response by the police and authorities seem to be nationwide.

[23]     Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds that [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] are Convention refugees and have established a serious risk of persecution, and the panel accepts their claim.

[24]     I will now allow the other members to indicate whether or not they concur with the panel’s decision.

[25]     DANIEL MCKEOWN: I concur.

[26]     KATRINA PIKE: I concur, but for slightly different reasons that I will now give.

[27]     Well, I broadly concur with the reasons of my colleagues though different from their finding in one important regard.

[28]     I find that you did not face the issues that you put forward in terms of housing and child protective services before you left Hungary.

[29]     You owned, madam, a home in Hungary. The preponderance of the evidence before me, I find, supports that you continue to live in that home. Your ID documents continue to state that you had that as your address. When you came to Canada, you have listed that as your address, and you provided no documentary evidence to support that you ever lived anywhere else.

[30]     In addition, as noted by my colleagues, you provided one document related to the sale of that home. It showed that the sale did not occur. Despite having the specific contact information for someone intimately involved in that sale, you did not provide any further evidence to support any other aspect of that sale.

[31]     And so on that important point, I do find that the evidence doesn’t support your allegations. However, on a forward-looking basis, I do find that the evidence that you have provided that is credible does support that your housing situation going forward would be precarious given the attempt to sell of the home to recover debt.

[32]     The other evidence you provided today with regard to what you faced as Roma in education and work and with regard to experiencing racist incidents was credible, as it was internally consistent and consistent with the broader country documentation. You are all likely to experience discrimination in housing going forward given the country documentation.

[33]     So, I do agree with the reasons put forward by my colleagues regarding how and why the evidence supports that given what you face upon return to Hungary, you do face persecution, as well as their reasons for why there is no State protection or internal flight alternative available to you.

[34]     MEMBER: Thank you.

[35]     So, that concludes the decision.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-