2019 RLLR 41

2019 RLLR 41

Despite credibility concerns about the claimant's asserted political involvement and detention in the DRC, the tribunal accepted the claimant’s credible evidence of a brutal attack in South Africa together with objective documentary evidence showing systemic violence and inadequate state protection for LGBT persons in South Africa and the DRC; on balance of probabilities the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution because of imputed sexual orientation and activism and is a Convention refugee, whereas the son failed to show an individualized risk and his claim was rejected.

Citation
2019 RLLR 41
Parties
Claimant: Mr. [XXX]; Claimant: [XXX]
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim accepted for Mr. [XXX] as a Convention refugee; claim of son [XXX] rejected and son not found to be a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Sexual Orientation, Political Opinion, Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. [XXX]

Claimant

[XXX]

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Effect of section 1E/permanent residency in South Africa on claim

Ratio Decidendi

Despite credibility concerns about the claimant's asserted political involvement and detention in the DRC, the tribunal accepted the claimant’s credible evidence of a brutal attack in South Africa together with objective documentary evidence showing systemic violence and inadequate state protection for LGBT persons in South Africa and the DRC; on balance of probabilities the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution because of imputed sexual orientation and activism and is a Convention refugee, whereas the son failed to show an individualized risk and his claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim accepted for Mr. [XXX] as a Convention refugee; claim of son [XXX] rejected and son not found to be a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claimant Mr. [XXX] recognized as a Convention refugee.
  • Claimant [XXX] (son) claim rejected; not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.