2024 RLLR 46
Citation: 2024 RLLR 46
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 18, 2024
Panel: Gladys Idem
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Elliot Wilson on behalf of John W Grice
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC3-14652
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-14657
ATIP Number: A-2025-00128
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision for the claimant, XXXX XXXX, and her son, XXXX XXXX, file number TC3-14652 and TC3-14657, respectively.
[2] The claimants allege to be citizens of Hungary and are seeking refugee protection, pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[3] At the time of this hearing, the associate claimant is a minor of 16 years-old, and the principal claimant is his mother. She served as a designated representative and confirmed her role at the start of the hearing. The principal claimant submitted a death certificate of the minor’s father, which confirms that he died in 2011.
[4] The Panel considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 3 on Proceedings Involving Minors, while eliciting and assessing the evidence of the minor claimant.
[5] The specific allegations of the claim are set out on the Basis of Claim forms of the claimant.
[6] In summary, the claimants are — allege that they fear discrimination that amounts to persecution in Hungary, due to their ethnicity as Roma.
[7] I have considered the evidence in this case, and I find that the claimants are Convention refugees, because they face a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary, due to their Roma ethnicity.
[8] I find that the personal identity and nationality of the claimants as citizens of Hungary has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a copy of each claimant’s passport biodata page on file.
[9] I find that there is a nexus between what the claimants fear and the Convention ground of ethnicity; therefore, the claim is assessed under section 96.
[10] The claimants’ narrative describes the discrimination they both experienced in Hungary because of their Roma ethnicity. The PC also stated that her older son and his family were accepted as Convention refugees in Canada, because of the persecution they experienced in Hungary, due to their Roma ethnicity.
[11] The evidence submitted by the claimants includes declarations from the Roma Ethnicity Self-Government in XXXX, Hungary, which confirms that they are both members of the Roma community.
[12] The principal claimant testified that they experienced discrimination in many public places, including on the bus transport system. She said people called them derogatory names on the bus and spat on them on the streets because of their Roma ethnicity. The principal claimant spoke about how she was treated badly and also called derogatory names at her workplace.
[13] The associate claimant spoke about how he was constantly bullied in school by his peers because of his Roma ethnicity. The principal claimant mentioned that when she started school, she was attending a school that was banned for both Roma and non-Roma students. However, she was later transferred to special school for Roma students who have learning disabilities, even though she had never been diagnosed with a learning disability. The principal claimant said the teachers at the Roma school treated them badly and said they were dumb because of their Roma ethnicity.
[14] The principal claimant testified that she experienced hardship accessing medical care. She spoke about how she was mocked in the hospital when she went to receive treatment for an injury on her leg. She mentioned that the doctors refused to examine her, and then sent her home. She said that she had to treat herself at home.
[15] The principal claimant spoke about how she was discriminated by landlords who refused to rent apartments to her, because she is Roma. Counsel submitted that they were unable to rent houses with standard living conditions because of the discrimination against the claimant.
[16] The principal claimant said they were ostracized by the society in general, and they faced racism in every area of their lives.
[17] I accept your testimonies as credible and give full weight to the evidence you both submitted in support of your claims.
[18] You have both established, on a balance of probabilities, that you are Roma, and you experienced discrimination due to your Roma ethnicity.
[19] In assessing the overall credibility and evidence of the claimants, I did not find any discrepancies or omissions that would affect the core of their claim.
[20] Accordingly, I have found you both to be credible.
[21] The claimants believe that if they return to Hungary, they will continue to be persecuted because of their ethnicity.
[22] I find that you have both established, on a balance of probabilities, your subjective fear.
[23] Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package for Hungary confirms that there are several human rights issues in Hungary, which includes discrimination against Roma people. According to the NDP, Roma people suffer social and economic exclusion in almost all fields of life, and it states that Roma children face discrimination in education. There is segregation of Roma children in schools and frequent misdiagnosis as having mental challenges.
[24] Item 13.5 states that the European Commission expressed concerns regarding the disproportionate representation of Roma children in schools and stated that this negatively affected their 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 mentions 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.
[25] Discrimination against identified groups will amount to persecution, where the measures of discrimination leads to consequences of a substantially prejudicial nature for the person concerned, such as serious restrictions on their right to earn their living or access to essential services. The effects of community discrimination for the claimants are based on their personal experiences in Hungary, which amounted to persecution.
[26] The objective evidence supports the claimants’ allegations that they will experience discrimination in every area of their lives if they are forced to return to Hungary.
[27] I find that the claimants will face a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary because of the persecution they have experienced, due to their ethnicity.
[28] Therefore, I find that their subjective fear has an objective basis, and they have a well-founded fear of persecution.
[29] Item 10.11 of the NDP cited 2018 report by the UN Human Rights Committee in Hungary, indicating that there is a prevalence of hate crimes and hate speech targeting the Roma population. The police often fail to investigate and persecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. The same report indicates that the Roma population face continued hostility from police forces in Hungary, and that there was a failure to protect them from attacks.
[30] Based on the objective evidence, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimants in this case.
[31] Therefore, I am satisfied that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection.
[32] For reasons like those of state protection, I find that the claimants will face a serious possibility of persecution everywhere in Hungary because of their Roma ethnicity.
[33] The societal discrimination that the claimants would face in Hungary because of their ethnicity would, on a balance of probabilities, be the same everywhere; therefore, I find that there is no viable IFA for the claimants in Hungary.
[34] Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees, under section 96, because they face a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary.
[35] Therefore, their claims are accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———