2024 RLLR 47

Citation: 2024 RLLR 47
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 11, 2024
Panel: Gladys Idem
Counsel for the Claimant(s): David Vago
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC3-15776
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00128
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision for the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant alleges to be a citizen of Hungary and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. At the time of this hearing, the claimant was a minor who is nine years old and the designated representative is his mother. The DR confirmed her role at the start of the hearing and testified on behalf of the claimant. The Panel did not require the presence or testimony of the claimant. The Panel considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 3 on proceedings involving minors at the Immigration and Refugee Board in deciding the abovementioned procedural accommodation.

[2] The specific allegations of the claim are set out on the claimant’s Basis of Claim form. In summary, the claimant alleges that he feels discrimination amounting to persecution in Hungary based on his Roma ethnicity. I have considered the evidence in this case, and I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee because he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary on the basis of his Roma ethnicity.

[3] I find that the personal identity and nationality of the claimant as a citizen of Hungary has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a copy of the claimant’s passport.

[4] I find that there is a nexus between what the claimant fears and the Convention Ground of ethnicity. Therefore his claim is assessed under section 96.

[5] In assessing the overall credibility and evidence of the claimant, I did not find any discrepancies or omissions that will affect the core of his claim. The DR’s testimony was quite direct and consistent with the claimant’s BOC allegations. Therefore, I find him to be credible. They DR provided credible testimony about the Roma ethnicity of the claimant. The claimant’s narrative states that the claimant is Roma by birth, as his mother and father are also Roma.

[6] The DR testified that the claimant — the DR testified that the claimant recognized as Roma because of his physical attributes and his Roma name. She spoke about the Roma tradition and celebration. She also gave details about what they did whenever they gathered for celebrations, such as singing and dancing to Roma folk songs. The DR testified about the claimant’s Roma identity in a clear and spontaneous manner. Therefore, I accept her testimony as credible and find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, his Roma ethnicity.

[7] The DR testified that the claimant will experience discrimination and persecution in Hungary because of his Roma ethnicity. Considering that the claimant is a minor, I assess the situation of similarly-situated persons in Hungary in determining whether the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary. The DR spoke about the discrimination she experienced in Hungary due to her Roma ethnicity, and she fears that the claimant will face the same discrimination she and the claimant’s father have experienced.

[8] The DR spoke about how she was ostracized and bullied in school. She said she was called a stinky gypsy and bullied by non-Roma students. Whenever she reported to the school authorities, they did not do anything to help, and she was always accused of inciting or causing the conflict. She testified that it was difficult getting a job in Hungary. When she applied for jobs, she was always — often told that she would not get the job because she is Roma.

[9] The DR spoke about how the lack of access to adequate healthcare caused the claimant to have an existing medical condition. She explained that when she was 41 weeks pregnant with the claimant, she was refused care in a hospital because she was Roma. The delay in getting access to medical care led to an emergency situation that caused the claimant’s medical condition.

[10] She mentioned that Romas are exposed to racist attacks in Hungary. The DR said they live in a Roma settlement in Hungary, which had poor social amenities. However, they were unable to find better living conditions due to the discrimination they were experiencing. She testified that in Canada, they are able to live in a decent home. They have been — and they have been given a chance to live freely and fit in with others without being discriminated.

[11] The DR testified that if the claimant returns to Hungary, he will experience discrimination in every area of his life because of his Roma ethnicity. The claimant submitted his father’s PRRA application and positive result, which was based on the discrimination his father experienced in Hungary because of his Roma ethnicity. He also provided a medical report which confirms the claimant’s medical condition, which the DR testified about.

[12] The DR testified in a straightforward and detailed manner. Therefore, I accept her testimony as credible, and give full weight to the evidence the claimant submitted in support of his claim. Accordingly, I find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, his subjective fear.

[13] The claimant stated fear of persecution in Hungary because of his Roma ethnicity is consistent with the objective documentary evidence, which is discussed below. Regarding the situation of Roma in Hungary, Item 2.1 of the National Documentation for Hungary confirms that there are several human rights issues in Hungary, which includes discrimination against Roma people. According to the NDP, Roma people suffered socioeconomic exclusion in almost all fields of life, and it states that Roma faced discrimination in education. The segregation of Roma children in schools, and frequent misdiagnoses as having mental challenges.

[14] Item 13.5 states that Roma children disproportionately face segregation and lower quality education in the school system. According to Freedom House, Roma students are also improperly placed into schools for children with mental disabilities. The NDP confirms that the Roma population in Hungary face discrimination in all fields of life, including education, housing, employment, and healthcare. It also confirms 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 Romas.

[15] Another report states that Romas face housing discrimination from segregated villages to settlements in cities which do not even meet the most basic living standards. Human Rights Watch states in their report that Romas face discrimination in workplaces. They mentioned that the unemployment rate is three (3) to five (5) times higher for Roma than non-Roma. Romas are also overrepresented in public works programs, and the incidents of discrimination go unreported due to the fear of loss of benefits.

[16] I have assessed the claimant’s risk in light of his Roma profile and the country conditions for Hungary. The country condition evidence indicates that Romas in Hungary experience discrimination in in every area of life. I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of discrimination that amounts to persecution. Considering that the discriminatory acts will, on a balance of probabilities, be continuously repeated over several years. Therefore, I find that the claimant’s subjective here has an objective basis, and I find that he has a well-founded fear of persecution.

[17] Item 10.1 of the NDP cites a 2018 report by the UN Human Rights Committee in Hungary, which states that there is a prevalence of hate crimes and hate speech targeting the Roma population. The police often fail to investigate and prosecute 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 is a failure to protect them from attacks.

[18] The objective evidence suggests that the authorities are also complicit in the persecution against Romas. Therefore, I find on the balance of probabilities that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimant even when needed. As such, I am satisfied that the claimant has reported the presumption of state protection.

[19] For reasons like those of state protection, I find that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution everywhere in Hungary. The NDP cited above indicates that the persecution the claimant would face in Hungary because of his Roma ethnicity exists everywhere in the country. Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities that there is no viable IFA for the claimant in Hungary.

[20] Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 because he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Hungary. Therefore, his claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———