2023 RLLR 78
Citation: 2023 RLLR 78
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 27, 2023
Panel: Carolyn Adolph
Counsel for the Claimant(s): David Vago
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC3-14678
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-14679, TC3-14680
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for the claims gathered under TC3-14678.
[2] XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant; XXXX XXXX, the first associate claimant and XXXX XXXX, the second associate claimant, are citizens of Hungary.
[3] They’re claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[4] This is a family group and their claims were joined pursuant to RPD Rule 55.
ALLEGATIONS
[5] Their allegations are set out in their Basis of Claim forms at Exhibits 2.1 through 2.3 and they all rely on the narrative of the principal claimant.
[6] In summary, they’re making their claims on the basis of their Roma ethnicity. They fear persecution by the State and by society upon return to Hungary.
DETERMINATION
[7] Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find each claimant to be a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96.
[8] They each face a serious possibility of persecution, on a balance of probabilities, on the basis of their Roma ethnicity.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[9] I find that each claimant has established their personal and national identity, on a balance of probabilities. I rely on the certified true copies of their passports issued by the Government of Hungary at Exhibit 1.
Nexus
[10] I find there is a link between their fear of return and the Convention grounds, ethnicity and the claims are assessed under section 96.
Credibility
[11] I found the claimants to be credible witnesses. Their testimony was clear, direct, spontaneous and unembellished. There were no inconsistencies, omissions or discrepancies of note.
[12] I found no reason to disbelieve them, concerning their fear of return to Hungary because of their Roma ethnicity.
[13] I give their testimony full weight and it is presumed to be true.
Documentary Evidence
[14] The claimants provided documentary evidence packages at Exhibits 6 and 7. I’ll mention the most probative.
[15] At Exhibit 6, there’s a letter from a Roma nationality school dated from last year, which states that the associate claimant — the second associate claimant can take exams there. The second associate claimant testified that this was an all Roma school and a better one than the schools he had attended before where he was excluded from the classroom with Hungarian children and treated as a lesser student.
[16] I found his testimony and evidence to be corroborated by the National Documentation Package, as well as Counsel’s country conditions evidence also at Exhibit 6.
[17] I find it to be clear that Roma children in Hungary are frequently segregated without permission from Roma parents.
[18] Both the principal claimant and the first associate claimant also testified that they left school early because of segregation.
[19] There are also examples of all Roma schools run by the State, which offer poor education and mistreatment of Roma students, according to Tabs 2.12 and 13.12.
[20] Some Roma communities have responded with their own all Roma schools.
[21] However, the second associate claimant testified that school authorities at the all Roma school could not stop him from being attacked going to and leaving the school by ethnic Hungarians who had identified him as a pupil there. He testified that because of these attacks, he did not complete his education.
[22] I accept his testimony and the documentary evidence and I find that it establishes a great deal. First, the second associate claimant was invited to take exams at a Roma school.
[23] On a balance of probabilities, he is Roma, as he alleges.
[24] And since he’s Roma, on a balance of probability, his parents are Roma also.
[25] Therefore, the three (3) claimants have established that they are Roma ethnicity.
[26] Now, I also find that since these claimants all experienced segregation at school, according to their testimony leading to their early departure, I find that in all their cases, the denial of education to them, as Roma in Hungary, was a violation of their fundamental human rights.
[27] Furthermore, it also set them up for a lifetime of poor economic prospects, as well as poverty.
Precipitating Events
[28] The principal claimant testified that the claimants lived in a building from 1991 until 2022 and they were forced to leave it when the building underwent remediation. He provided photographs of this house at Exhibit 6, with a sagging wall covered in plastic and a roof with many holes and water on the floor. He testified that the family had lived in this dwelling in such poor condition for so long because it was all that they could get. He testified he had a job as a XXXX XXXX for the XXXX. And the first associate claimant added that he had worked overtime just to be able to afford this place with the family.
[29] I find the claim is established that even with a XXXX job, they were unable to secure adequate housing.
[30] I asked the first associate claimant why the family could not have found a nice home in an ethnically Hungarian part of the city?
[31] And she responded that it had simply been too hard for them just to get what they had.
[32] I find this is powerful testimony that — and it establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that Hungarian society walls Roma people off. Roma people, such as the claimants, walls them off from any kind of economic security, safety and comfort.
[33] The principal claimant testified that in 2022, when the family was forced out, there was then nowhere to go but shelter.
[34] I asked him what caused them to flee the country and he testified that there was a day when they were seated on a bench and a police officer told them to shift away or be arrested.
[35] He testified that after this, he approached family members in Canada to ask for help in getting out of Hungary.
[36] And I accept this explanation.
[37] I find the claimants have established that they do fear return to Hungary.
[38] They have established their subjective fear.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[39] I find their testimony to be corroborated by Tab 13.5 of the National Documentation Package, which reports that Roma in Hungary face discrimination in every walk of life, this includes education, housing, employment and health care. Roma communities face widespread discrimination, social exclusion and poverty.
[40] Roma are the largest minority group in Hungary, according to Tab 2.1.
[41] Segregation of Roma children remains a problem. And there are reports of high early dropout rates among Roma populations. There’s also segregation in housing for Roma, according to Tab 5.2, and that homelessness is a growing problem.
[42] I find that the claimants’ testimony and their documentary evidence, as well as the objective evidence taken together, establish that the claimants were in a situation in Hungary where segregation in education and housing and led to lack of employment opportunity and poverty, and that institutions, such as the health care system, failed to care for and support them.
[43] I find the objective evidence and their testimony establish that the State has a leading role in maintaining the systems that oppress Roma, and they allow systemic discrimination to persist.
[44] I find that the claimants have established that they face violations of fundamental human rights, including the right to life and security of the person and the right to education and to equality before the law and that these violations were inflicted in a systematic way.
[45] Therefore, the discrimination they fear upon return rises to the level of persecution.
[46] The claimants have established an objective basis for their subjective fear of return and they have a well-founded fear of persecution.
State Protection
[47] There’s a presumption that a (inaudible) country is capable of protecting its own citizens, unless it is in a state of breakdown and Hungary is a functioning state.
[48] However, the objective evidence at Tabs 10.1 and 10.2 report that when Roma approached the police for protection because of racist attacks, police do not take action as a general rule.
[49] Evidence at Exhibit 6 reports that police participate in violence against Romas.
[50] (Inaudible) 10.1 says that prosecutors will not even pursue charges based on the racial nature of an attack. There is official corruption and institutional racism particularly against Romas, which produces a collective failure to provide appropriate service.
[51] I therefore find that the State is a leading participant in the persecution faced by Roma and it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the State.
[52] As a result, I find there is no adequate state protection for the claimants.
Internal Flight Alternative
[53] To be accepted, the claimants must establish that there is nowhere in Hungary where they could live where they would not face persecution.
[54] However, I find that the State is among the agents of persecution and it exercises control over all of Hungary.
[55] Therefore, I find compelling evidence that the situation of the Roma people in Hungary does not vary from place to place.
[56] Therefore, the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution everywhere in Hungary and there is no viable internal flight alternative.
[57] In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees, on the grounds of their ethnicity.
[58] On a balance of probabilities, they each face a serious possibility of persecution upon return to Hungary and all three (3) claims are accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———