2023 RLLR 74
Citation: 2023 RLLR 74
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 28, 2023
Panel: Danijela Stajic
Counsel for the Claimant(s): David Vago
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC3-00988
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-00984, TC3-00987
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, the Principle Claimant and his two minor children, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, the Associate Claimants, who claim to be citizens of Hungary and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or IRPA.
[2] These claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55 of the RPD rules.
[3] The Principal Claimant was appointed as the Designated Representative for the Minor Claimants.
[4] So, your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim forms.
[5] In summary, you allege persecution in Hungary on the basis of your Roma identities.
[6] I find that you are convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA, as you face a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary on account of your Roma ethnicities.
[7] So, turning first to identity, your personal and national identities as citizens of Hungary have been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and photocopies of your Hungarian passports included in the CBSA IRCC Claim Referral package.
[8] Concerning nexus, I find that there is a nexus between the harm that you fear and your Roma ethnicity, therefore your claims your claims were assessed pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA.
[9] Concerning credibility, I find you to be a credible and trustworthy witness.
[10] There have been no relevant contradictions or omissions that would go to the core of your claim.
[11] You testified in a manner that was consistent with all the other documents on file, including your Basis of Claim form and narrative, and you also filled some gaps in your allegations during your testimony.
[12] Therefore, I find you to be a credible witness and believe what you have alleged in support of your claim.
[13] Regarding your ethnicity as Roma, you testified and I accept that you are Roma.
[14] You testified that you can be recognized as Roma in Hungary by certain physical characteristics such as your skin, eye and hair color, which you testified that you have darker skin, hair and — and eyes than ethnic Hungarians as well as your style of clothing.
[15] In support of your Roma ethnicity, you provided certificates issued by the President of the Roma Self-Government in your hometown, found at Exhibit-5, which indicate that you are of Roma ethnicity. So, I place weight on these documents in establishing your Roma ethnicities.
[16] While individual instances of discrimination do not necessarily constitute persecution, a cumulative pattern of discrimination may amount to persecution, taking into account the effect on the person concerned.
[17] So, in this case, I find that your past experiences of discrimination were serious, systemic and repetitive instances of discrimination that together rise to the level of persecution.
[18] You testified that in your schooling years, you experienced discrimination from teachers and other students due to your Roma ethnicity, which began in elementary school. This ultimately resulted in you dropping out of school at grade XXXX.
[19] You also testified to diminished job prospects due to your Roma ethnicity.
[20] Your previous employments were based largely on short-term precarious work and you testified that prospective employers made derogatory and discriminatory remarks about your Roma ethnicity and would not hire you due to your Roma ethnicity.
[21] So, you stated in your narrative and testified at today’s hearing to a number of times in your daily life will you face discrimination based on your ethnicity.
[22] At today’s hearing, you specifically testified to multiple incidents including being attacked by masked assailants and being denied proper medical care.
[23] When I asked you about your experience with medical care, you testified that your partner was not able to access medical care when she was in labor and that she was made to endure physical pain, because medical personnel refused to examine her on account of her Roma ethnicity.
[24] In regard to social services, you testified that you attempted to approach the police for assistance when you were assaulted and you were unable to obtain any help from them due to your ethnicity.
[25] So, I find that you have established your ethnicity as Roma on balance of probabilities.
[26] I also find that you’ve established that you’ve suffered a combination of harassment, discrimination and violence on the basis of your ethnicity, which cumulatively rises to persecution in Hungary.
[27] So, concerning your failure to claim refugee protection in the U.S., after leaving Hungary, you traveled to the United States before crossing the border into Canada and seeking refugee protection.
[28] When questioned on the failure to seek asylum in the U.S., you testified that it was your intention to come to Canada because you have relatives here.
[29] I find your explanation reasonable in your particular circumstances.
[30] Accordingly, your failure to claim in the U.S. does not raise significant concerns with respect to subjective fear or credibility.
[31] I also note that failure to claim in the U.S. is not a determinative issue, and in your particular case, it is insufficient to render your claim not credible given your forward looking risk as Roma in Hungary.
[32] Therefore, based on the presumption of truthfulness, your consistent testimony, and the corroborative evidence, I accept your allegations as credible.
[33] I find that your subject to fear of persecution on the basis of your own ethnicity has been established on a balance of probabilities.
[34] Okay, turning now to objective basis, refugee claimants must establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution related to a convention ground or that they face a risk of personalized harm as contemplated by Section 97 over — on a balance of probabilities.
[35] Therefore, having found that you have a subjective fear of persecution, I’ve turned to the question of whether these fears have an objective basis.
[36] I find that the objective evidence confirms that Roma face institutionalized systematic discrimination as well as violence and other issues, which represents — represent a sustained violation of human rights and cumulatively amounts to persecution.
[37] The European Commission states that the group most vulnerable to discrimination is the Roma population.
[38] Further, the objective evidence indicates that Roma are regularly subjected to racist and discriminatory treatment in Hungary, suffering from general societal mistreatment in healthcare, employment, education and legal services.
[39] Similarly, sources in the objective evidence report that Roma face widespread discrimination.
[40] Sources from Freedom House indicate that Roma communities also face poverty as well as societal exclusion or segregation.
[41] Further, on March 2021 report on Roma in Hungary notes based on focused group interviews that everyday prejudices are widespread regardless of residence segregation, education or social status, and the media in Hungary has serious responsibility for the discriminatory attitudes of the majority.
[42] The objective evidence notes that although Hungary has expressed commitment to equal treatment for all minority citizens, in practice social discrimination and exclusion of Roma from education, employment, and healthcare remains a pervasive problem in Hungary.
[43] Other reports suggest that rather than easing, the problem is increasing as a result of the rise in nationalist sentiment and the influence of the Jobbik party in Hungary.
[44] More far right political violence against Roma, while reduced from the early 2010s, is still common with Roma routinely scapegoated by the governing Fidesz party and the Jobbik movement.
[45] So, the objective evidence establishes that those of Roma ethnicity in Hungary face sustained and systematic human rights abuses that amount of persecution.
[46] Therefore, based on the Claimants’ Roma ethnicity and the treatment of Roma generally in Hungary, I find that their subjective fear has an objective basis and it is well-founded.
[47] Turning now State protection, the State is presumed to — presumed able to provide adequate protection to its citizens.
[48] Therefore, Claimants generally have the duty to seek protection before seeking protection in Canada; however, in certain circumstances, it would be objective — objectively unreasonable to expect a Claimant to do so.
[49] Furthermore, the protection available to a Claimant may not be adequate, given their specific circumstances.
[50] In this case, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that the State is unable or unwilling to provide the Claimants with adequate protection.
[51] Objective evidence indicates that there is a large distrust of the police and the legal system within Hungary’s Roma community, the cause of which is generally agreed to be dismissive and overly punitive police actions against Roma.
[52] Similarly, the objective evidence regarding police complaints indicates that members of the Roma community face hostility from police forces in Hungary, which includes a failure to protect them from attacks.
[53] Further, the report indicates police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claim — claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech against the — the Roma community.
[54] So, in view of the documentary evidence, I find that State protection for the Claimants is inadequate on a balance of probabilities.
[55] Further, you, Mr. Claimant, testified that you approached the police; however, you obtained no protection.
[56] Therefore, based on your experience in Hungary and the objective evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the — that you have rebutted the presumption of adequate State protection with clear and convincing evidence on the State’s inability or unwillingness to protect you.
[57] Turning now to internal flight alternative, in order for a refugee claim to succeed, a claimant must establish that there is no other place in their country in which they can live without facing a serious possibility of — of persecution or a likely risk of Section 97 harm.
[58] Alternatively, the Claimants must demonstrate that relocation to another place in the country is unreasonable in their circumstances.
[59] I’ve considered whether — whether there’s an internal fight alternative for the — for you in Hungary, and based on the documentary evidence already mentioned, systemic discrimination amounting to persecution is widespread throughout Hungary. Therefore, I find there is no internal — viable internal flight alternative for the Claimants.
[60] So, in conclusion, having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the Claimants on the basis of their Roma ethnicity, should they return to Hungary.
[61] Therefore, I find that the Claimants are convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA. Their claims are therefore accepted.
[62] This concludes my reasons. I will now take us off the record.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———