Citation: 2019 RLLR 50
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 14, 2019
Panel: S. Eng
Counsel for the claimant(s): John A Salam
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TB7-23388
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-23443, TB7-23444, TB7-23445, TB7-23460
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000069-000073
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claims of principal claimant [XXX]; her three children [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]; along with her common-law partner [XXX]; in RPD File Numbers TB7-23388, TB7-23443, TB7-23444, TB7-23445 and TB7-23460.
[2] The claimants are citizens of Hungary and they are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[3] The facts and events alleged in support of their claims are set out in their respective Basis of Claim Forms. In summary, the claimants allege persecution in Hungary on the basis of their ethnic Roma identity.
[4] The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees within the meaning of Section 96 of the IRPA.
[5] The claimants’ identities were established as citizens of Hungary through their passports and the passports which were seized by CBSA. The panel is therefore satisfied that the claimants have met their burden and established their identities.
[6] Based on its consideration of the totality of the evidence including the claimants’ testimonies, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants are ethnic Roma. The principal claimant was the only claimant that testified at the hearing. The panel finds that the claimant testified in a straightforward fashion with regard to the central element of her claim.
[7] The panel finds that the claimant’s overall testimony was credible and accepts on a balance of probabilities that she has faced discrimination that would rise to the level of persecution and would continue to face a serious possibility of persecution on a forward-looking basis should the claimants return to Hungary.
[8] In their Basis of Claim Forms and in the principal claimant’s testimony, the claimant provided in detail regarding a number of incidences of discrimination in Hungary which the panel would summarise.
[9] The claimant has around a grade [XXX] education, which she testified was the result of discriminatory attitudes towards Roma students in school and was not able to continue.
[10] The claimant testified how her three children also experienced discrimination in school because of their Roma ethnicity. The claimant testified about housing problems in Hungary and visits from the Children’s Aid Society in Hungary. The claimant testified how unpaid debts led to the water and electricity being disconnected to the house and a visit from the Children’s Aid Society over the conditions with her children.
[11] The claimant had testified how she had moved into this house which was her ex-husband’s around the year 2000. The claimant testified how after the visit from Children’s Aid Society, she moved into a side cabin by her parent’s house and also talked about her divorce from her ex-husband around the same time. The claimant testified about the side cabin not having proper running water or bathroom facilities.
[12] She indicated how the Children’s Aid Society came to see her again and that she had to move in with the parents of her current common-law partner. The claimant testified how the Children’s Aid Society followed up with another visit and indicated that that house was too small for her and all the children to live in. The claimant described how she tried to find housing to rent but was turned away due to the number of children she had and also because of her Roma ethnicity. Claimant testified about the Children’s Aid Society threatening to take away her children and that being the main reason for fleeing Hungary.
[13] The claimant also testified about her attempts to obtain employment, but how she was only able to find temporary work under the table because of her Roma identity.
[14] The claimant spoke about not receiving proper medical treatment and suffering from an infection from a caesarean section delivery.
[15] The claimant also testified about her common-law partner and her son being attacked by ultranationalist Hungarians by bus stop. The panel found the claimant’s testimonies to be credible and lacking in embellishment.
[16] The panel did have concerns regarding the claimant’s testimony regarding the auction of her ex husband’s house after their divorce, which the claimant would have been entitled to half of the profits of the sale. The claimant testified that she did not know what happened to the house after speaking to the executor and whether it had been auctioned off. The claimant did not follow up again about the matter despite having the phone number and address for the person responsible for this sale, and did not provide any further documentation regarding the proceedings and sale of the house.
[17] The panel finds the claimant’s testimony regarding the sale not credible as the panel finds the claimant would have sought further information on profits that she would have or might have been able to receive or even to further establish this claim. However, the panel finds that the concerns with the auction or sale of the house do not negate the panel’s other findings where the testimony and evidence were persuasive in showing that the claimants have experienced serious, systemic and repetitive discrimination.
[18] The panel finds cumulatively that the discrimination the claimants faced including in areas of education, employment, housing and health care, that they have experienced discrimination rising to the level of persecution in Hungary.
[19] There is also evidence to suggest State protection has not been adequately available to the claimants. The country documentation for Hungary is broadly consistent with what the claimant has indicated will happen to them. The National Documentation Package for Hungary indicates that Roma experienced widespread discrimination in housing, employment, education and treatment and accessing health care. Based on the claimant’s testimony, the panel finds that there has been systematic societal discrimination against the claimants being Roma which affected their access to adequate education, health care and employment.
[20] Regarding State protection, though Hungary is a functioning democracy and is a member of State of the European Union and though the documentary evidence tells me that Hungary is attempting to make changes to improve the situation for Roma, serious problems remain today.
[21] Based on these country conditions and based on the claimant’s testimony, which the panel has found to be credible, the panel is satisfied that State protection would neither be adequate or forthcoming. There are multiple instances recorded of Roma individuals seeking protection and being subjected to racist or discriminatory actions by police. The panel finds that claimant’s own actions and failing to seek out State protection are reasonably explained.
[22] The panel also finds that there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimants as the problems of discrimination and the response by the police and authorities seem to be nationwide.
[23] Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds that [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] are Convention refugees and have established a serious risk of persecution, and the panel accepts their claim.
[24] I will now allow the other members to indicate whether or not they concur with the panel’s decision.
[25] DANIEL MCKEOWN: I concur.
[26] KATRINA PIKE: I concur, but for slightly different reasons that I will now give.
[27] Well, I broadly concur with the reasons of my colleagues though different from their finding in one important regard.
[28] I find that you did not face the issues that you put forward in terms of housing and child protective services before you left Hungary.
[29] You owned, madam, a home in Hungary. The preponderance of the evidence before me, I find, supports that you continue to live in that home. Your ID documents continue to state that you had that as your address. When you came to Canada, you have listed that as your address, and you provided no documentary evidence to support that you ever lived anywhere else.
[30] In addition, as noted by my colleagues, you provided one document related to the sale of that home. It showed that the sale did not occur. Despite having the specific contact information for someone intimately involved in that sale, you did not provide any further evidence to support any other aspect of that sale.
[31] And so on that important point, I do find that the evidence doesn’t support your allegations. However, on a forward-looking basis, I do find that the evidence that you have provided that is credible does support that your housing situation going forward would be precarious given the attempt to sell of the home to recover debt.
[32] The other evidence you provided today with regard to what you faced as Roma in education and work and with regard to experiencing racist incidents was credible, as it was internally consistent and consistent with the broader country documentation. You are all likely to experience discrimination in housing going forward given the country documentation.
[33] So, I do agree with the reasons put forward by my colleagues regarding how and why the evidence supports that given what you face upon return to Hungary, you do face persecution, as well as their reasons for why there is no State protection or internal flight alternative available to you.
[34] MEMBER: Thank you.
[35] So, that concludes the decision.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-