Riczu c. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 888 (2013)

Conférencier:The Honourable Madam Justice McVeigh
Numéro de Registre:IMM-8775-12
Parties:Riczu c. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
 
EXTRAIT GRATUIT

Federal Court - Riczu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Source: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fc888/2013fc888.html

Date: 20130821

Docket: IMM-8775-12

Citation: 2013 FC 888

Ottawa , Ontario , August 21, 2013

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McVeigh

BETWEEN:

GYORGY RICZU

TEREZIA HARASZT

VIRAG RICZU

GYORGY RICZU

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Louise Paquette-Neville, a member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board (the Board), pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 (the Act). The Board dismissed the Applicants’ claim for refugee protection, concluding that they were not convention refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Act.

I. Background

[2] The Applicants are Hungarian citizens of Roma ethnicity, consisting of a father (Principal Applicant) and his common-law spouse, their daughter and son. They are aged 27, 26, 5, and 3, respectively. The family resided in Sajozsentpeter which is a small city close to Miskolc, the third largest city in Hungary. The Principal Applicant was employed as a nursing assistant in Miskolc.

[3] Their Personal Information Form (PIF) included a three-paragraph personal narrative dated December 29, 2010 that said that living in Hungary is no longer bearable for the Applicants due to ongoing threats, abuse and discrimination stemming from their Roma ethnicity.

[4] A three-page amendment to the original PIF was provided to the Board on May 10, 2012. In the amended narrative, the Applicants allege three instances where the Applicants faced persecution:

a) The first of these incidents occurred in August, 2010. The Principal Applicant alleges the Applicants were verbally threatened by five ethnic Hungarians at a playground in their hometown of Sajozsentpeter;

b) The second incident occurred on October 10, 2010. The Applicants went to the neighbouring town of Miskolc and accidentally encountered an anti gypsy rally where participants verbally threatened them. A coke bottle hit their son. The Principal Applicant was pushed against a bus stop, which injuring his hand;

c) The third incident occurred on November 21, 2010. The Principal Applicant says that he was walking in Sajozsentpeter with his friend Kotai Otto, when some skinheads threatened them before stabbing his friend Otto. As a result of his wounds, Otto died in his arms. The Applicants left the day after the funeral and arrived in Canada and applied for refugee protection on December 2, 2010.

II. Issue

[5] The issue raised in the present application is:

A. Was the Board’s state protection analysis reasonable?

III. Standard of review

[6] The Board’s finding with regards to state protection is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness ( Mejia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2009 FC 354 at paras 25, 29; Canada...

Pour continuer la lecture

SOLLICITEZ VOTRE ESSAI GRATUIT