PETER HORVATH ANGELIKA ARANKA HORVATH KATRIN HORVATH DIANA HORVATH EVA LAKATOS Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2022 FC 359

Date: 20220316 Docket: IMM-1426-21 Citation: 2022 FC 359 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, March 16, 2022 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:PETER HORVATH ANGELIKA ARANKA HORVATH KATRIN HORVATH DIANA HORVATH EVA LAKATOSApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Mr.

Peter Horvath (the "“Principal Applicant”"), his common-law spouse Eva Lakatos and their children Katrin Horvath, DianaHorvath and Angelika Aranka Horvath (collectively the "“Applicants”") seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration andRefugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the "“RAD”"). In that decision, the RAD dismissed their appeal from a decision of theImmigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the "“RPD”") which found that they were not Convention refugees norpersons in need of protection, within the scope of

section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and RefugeeProtection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "“Act”"). [2] The Applicants are citizens of Hungary. They sought protection in Canada on the basis of their status as Hungarian Roma who weretargeted between 2007 and 2015 by members of the community, neo-nazis and members of the Magya Onvedelmi Mozgalom-HungarianSelf-Defence Movement (the "“MOM”").

They also alleged that they were denied prenatal care and protection, by doctors and police. [3] The determinative issue for the RPD was credibility, relating to both the Principal Applicant and his common-law spouse. [4] The RAD also made negative credibility findings but proceeded to deal with the availability of state protection should the Applicantsbe returned to Hungary.

It explicitly acknowledged the status of the Applicants as Hungarian Roma and referred to sections of theNational Documentation Package for Hungary for the purpose of assessing whether they would either face the circumstances outlined insection 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Act, that is: …would face a serious possibility of persecution based upon their ethnicity or if, on a balance of probabilities, they are atrisk to their lives or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Hungary. [5] The RAD’s decision is reviewable upon the standard of reasonableness: see the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration) v.

Vavilov (2019), 2019 SCC 65 , 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.).

That standard requires the Court to ask if thedecision under review "“bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justifiedin relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision”". [6] The Applicants argue that the RAD’s decision is unreasonable, both with respect to the credibility findings and its conclusion on stateprotection. [7] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "“Respondent”") submits that the decision meets the standard of reasonableness. [8] It is not necessary for me to address the arguments about the credibility findings since I am satisfied the RAD did not reasonablyassess state protection. [9] I agree substantially with the submissions of the Applicants, that the RAD erred by focusing on the efforts of the Hungarian Romacommunity to protect itself, without engaging with the efforts of the Hungarian state to provide protection.

According to the decision ofthe Supreme Court of Canada in Ward v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R.689, a citizen is entitled to seek protection from its home government. In my opinion, the provision of protection from a specific ethnicgroup is not equivalent to state protection. The conclusion of the RAD, in this regard, is not reasonable. [10] In the result, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the RAD will be set aside and the matter remitted toa different panel of the RAD for redetermination.

There is no question for certification proposed.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1426-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division is set aside and the matter remitted to a different panel of the Refugee Appeal Division for redetermination. There is no question for certification proposed. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1426-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: PETER HORVATH, ANGELIKA ARANKA HORVATH, KATRIN HORVATH, DIANA HORVATH, EVA LAKATOS v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN TORONTO, ONTARIO AND ST.

JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 15, 2022 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: MARCH 16, 2022 APPEARANCES : Alison Pridham FOR THE APPLICANTS Kevin Spykerman FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Lewis & Associates Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT