2023 RLLR 68
Citation: 2023 RLLR 68
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 8, 2023
Panel: Gladys Idem
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jordan Duviner
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC2-24950
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] These are the Reasons for Decision for the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX (“claimant”). The claimant alleges to be a citizen of Hungary and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The specific allegations of the claim can be found on the claimant’s Basis of Claim Forms (BOC).
[3] In summary, the claimant alleges that her assigned gender at birth was male however, she now identifies and dresses as female. She fears persecution in Hungary due to her ethnicity as Roma and because of her gender identity and expression.
DETERMINATION
[4] The panel has considered the evidence in this case and finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee because she faces a serious possibility persecution in Hungary based on her ethnicity as Roma.
[5] In assessing this claim, the panel considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 9 on proceedings involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics, or “SOGIESC” (the Guideline), which establishes guiding principles for decision-makers in adjudicating cases involving SOGIESC.
[6] The panel also considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 which establishes guiding principles in gender related claims and proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[7] The claimant’s personal identity and nationality as a citizen of Hungary has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a copy of her Hungarian passport.
Nexus
[8] I find that there is an intersectionality between what the claimant fears and the Convention ground of ethnicity and membership in a particular social group namely, LGBTQ2S+. The risk she faces is heightened and compounded due to the claimant’s gender identity and expression. Therefore, her claim is assessed under section 96.
Credibility
[9] The claimant stated in her narrative that the first time she expressed her gender identity was in high school. She mentioned that she was bullied and assaulted by other kids the first day she went to school in tights, short girl top with trimmed and shaped eyebrows. She said the school authorities did not do anything about the attack on her, and neither was she provided any protection from further bullying and discrimination in school.
[10] The claimant also submitted a Hungarian government verification document which confirms that the claimant is of Roma origin and a member of the Roma community.
[11] The claimant confirmed during the hearing, that her preferred pronoun is “she/her”.
[12] The claimant testified about her experience in high school. She said she was discriminated and bullied because she was Roma and the constant bullying she experienced in school was exacerbated because of her Roma ethnicity.
[13] The claimant spoke about how she and her mother were insulted, discriminated and treated badly whenever they entered a store in Hungary. She said she is easily identified as Roma because she has a darker skin tone.
[14] I find the claimant to be a credible witness in terms of her Roma identity and the difficulties she experienced in Hungary, in part due to her Roma ethnicity. I also give full weight to the evidence she submitted to establish her Roma identity.
[15] However, I find that the claimant’s testimony about her personal experiences in Hungary were vague and lacked detail.
[16] Counsel mentioned during his submissions that the claimant’s age, language barrier, cultural background and level of sophistication are factors that impacted the claimant’s testimony.
[17] I agree with counsel’s submissions, and I find that these factors reasonably explain the difficulties that may have affected the claimant’s testimony. Therefore, I do not draw a negative inference from the vagueness or lack of detail in the claimant’s testimony.
[18] In assessing the claimant’s overall credibility and evidence, I did not find any discrepancies or omissions that would go to the core of her claim therefore, I have no reason to doubt her fear of discrimination and persecution from the Hungarian public or authorities because of her ethnicity.
[19] The claimant testified that if she returns to Hungary, she will continue to experience racism and discrimination in every area of her life because of her Roma ethnicity.
[20] The objective evidence which will be discussed below supports the claimant’s allegations about the discrimination of the Roma individuals in Hungary.
[21] Therefore, I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary and the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities, her subjective fear.
[22] In view of my finding that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution based on her Roma ethnicity, it is not necessary to consider the claimant’s allegations regarding her gender identity and expression.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[23] The National Documentation Package (NDP) confirms that there are several human rights problems in Hungary, including discrimination against Roma people. According to the NDP, Roma people suffer social and economic exclusion in almost all fields of life. It states that Roma children faced discrimination in education, that there is segregation of Roma children in schools, and frequent misdiagnosis as having mental challenges.[1]
[24] The European Commission expressed concerns regarding the disproportionate representation of Roma children in schools and stated that this negatively affected their future prospects. The NDP confirms that the Roma population in Hungary face discrimination in all fields of life, including education, housing, employment, and health care. It also states that the Roma people are also subjected to violence, often targeted by extremist groups and there are well-known incidents of violent hate crimes against Roma people. [2]
[25] Based on the documentary evidence, I am satisfied that if the claimant returns to Hungary, she would on a balance of probabilities, face discrimination that cumulatively amounts to persecution because of her Roma ethnicity.
[26] Therefore, I find that the claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis and, I find that she has a well-founded fear of persecution.
State Protection
[27] Item 10.1 of the NDP cites a 2018 report by the UN Human Rights Committee in Hungary indicating that there is a prevalence of hate crimes and hate speech targeting minorities, including the Roma population, and the police often failed to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. The same report indicates that the Roma population faced continued hostility from police forces in Hungary and that there was a failure to protect them from attacks. Based on the objective documentary evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities, that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimant in this case. Therefore, I am satisfied that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.[3]
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[28] For reasons like those of state protection, I find that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution everywhere in Hungary because of her Roma ethnicity. The societal discrimination that the claimant would face in Hungary as Roma would on a balance of probabilities, be the same everywhere. Therefore, I find there is no viable IFA for the claimant in Hungary.
CONCLUSION
[29] Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 because she faces a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary.
[30] Therefore, her claim is accepted.
(signed) Gladys Idem
December 8, 2023
[1] National Documentation Package, Hungary, 29 September 2023, tab 2.1: Hungary. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. . United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023.
[2] National Documentation Package, Hungary, 29 September 2023, tab 13.5: Situation and treatment of Roma, including ability to access housing, employment, education, and healthcare; state protection; impact of COVID-19 (2019–July 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 17 August 2021. HUN200705.E.
[3] National Documentation Package, Hungary, 29 September 2023, tab 10.1: Police response to complaints lodged by Roma citizens; procedures to lodge a complaint against a police officer; alternate complaint mechanisms for human rights violations, including complaints submitted through the Roma Police Officer’s… Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 17 August 2018. HUN106145.E.