Only evidence of danger to applicant was speculative, remote, and unsubstantiated

PERSON IN NEED OF PROTECTION

Only evidence of danger to applicant was speculative, remote, and unsubstantiated

Applicant was Hungarian citizen who was victim of large human trafficking ring in Canada. His statement was provided as evidence to support charges brought in Canada against Hungarian organized crime group who were involved with trafficking in human beings for Hungary. Applicant filed claim for protection. He feared that if he returned to Hungary, he would be harmed by Roma he implicated in crimes in Canada or by their family members or other members of their criminal organization. Refugee protection division of Immigration and Refugee Board rejected application on ground that applicant had not rebutted presumption of state of protection and that viable internal flight alternative existed for applicant in Hungary. Applicant applied for judicial review of decision. Application dismissed. Board’s decision was reasonable and constituted acceptable outcome in light of evidence on record and applicable legal principles. Board fully considered totality of evidence, including effectiveness of measures taken by Hungary. Board’s conclusion with regards to internal flight alternative in Hungary was also reasonable. Board indicated that only evidence of danger to applicant was speculative, remote, and unsubstantiated. If applicant entered witness protection program, he could benefit from such measures as personal protection, change of identity, and change of residence.
Cserkuti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Oct. 8, 2014, F.C., Luc Martineau J., File No. IMM-4103-13) 245 A.C.W.S. (3d) 398.