Hegedus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Hegedus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2012-12-12
Neutral citation
2012 FC 1462
File numbers
IMM-3979-12
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20121212
Docket: IMM-3979-12
Citation: 2012 FC 1462
Ottawa, Ontario, December 12, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie
BETWEEN:
MARIA HEGEDUS and ADAM BALOGH
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the Board), dated April 3, 2012. The Board found that they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA). For the reasons that follow the application is dismissed.
[2] Ms. Maria Hegedus (the applicant) and her adult son (Adam Balogh) are citizens of Hungary and of Roma ethnicity.
[3] Mr. Balogh was employed until a company Christmas party on December 24, 2010. After consuming alcohol, two of his co-workers kicked him and struck his head with a metal pole. He was hospitalized for two weeks following this attack.
[4] The applicant and her son went to the police at some point in January 2011 and gave a report with the assailants’ names. The police said that they would investigate. The applicants do not know the outcome of the investigation because they left Hungary after reporting the crime. They do not know if the assailants were arrested. The Board decided that the determinative issue was state protection and concluded that the applicants had not rebutted the presumption of state protection. The applicants arrived in Canada on March 1, 2011 and claimed refugee protection soon after.
[5] The Board concluded that they left “too soon afterwards, and did not allow the police to complete their investigation”. While a period of five weeks may seem long in the face of what appears to be a relatively straightforward criminal investigation, it cannot be said to be so outside the norm or range of time such that the Board’s finding that they had departed prematurely was unreasonable. There was no evidence to suggest that the police were not carrying out their investigation appropriately.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
"Donald J. Rennie"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3979-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARIA HEGEDUS and ADAM BALOGH v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ON
DATE OF HEARING: November 22, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: RENNIE J.
DATED: December 12, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Phillip J. L. Trotter
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Kevin Doyle
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Phillip J.L. Trotter, Lawyer
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
William F. Pentney,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT