TA4-11167

TA4-11167

Although the claimant was found credible as a homosexual and effeminate and had suffered abuse, the panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that Acapulco constituted a viable internal flight alternative where he would not face a serious possibility of persecution and could obtain protection and support; accordingly he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Citation
TA4-11167
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: R. Henderson
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97(1) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Particular Social Group, Sexual Orientation, State Protection, Credibility, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Particular Social Group Sexual Orientation State Protection Credibility +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

R. Henderson

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97(1) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee on account of sexual orientation
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces personal risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment or torture on return
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (Acapulco) is available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant was found credible as a homosexual and effeminate and had suffered abuse, the panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that Acapulco constituted a viable internal flight alternative where he would not face a serious possibility of persecution and could obtain protection and support; accordingly he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed