2019 RLLR 123

2019 RLLR 123

The panel accepted the claimant's identity and credibility, found his sexual orientation established on the balance of probabilities, concluded there is a serious possibility of persecution in Russia and that state protection and internal flight alternatives are not reasonably available, and found Article 1E exclusion inapplicable because the claimant does not have US permanent residence; therefore the claimant meets the definition of a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA.

Citation
2019 RLLR 123
Parties
Claimant: [XXX]
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim Under IRPA / Decision at Refugee Protection Division (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Claim allowed; claimant found to be a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Sexual Orientation, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Article 1 E Exclusion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights LGBT Rights Convention Refugee Sexual Orientation State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[XXX]

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim Under IRPA / Decision at Refugee Protection Division (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant's sexual orientation grounds a well-founded fear of persecution
  3. 3 Credibility and identity of the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted the claimant's identity and credibility, found his sexual orientation established on the balance of probabilities, concluded there is a serious possibility of persecution in Russia and that state protection and internal flight alternatives are not reasonably available, and found Article 1E exclusion inapplicable because the claimant does not have US permanent residence; therefore the claimant meets the definition of a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; claimant found to be a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claimant recognized as a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act