MA8-04150

MA8-04150

Given the totality of circumstances—credibility of the claimant, the humiliating and coercive circumstances of arrest and guilty plea, recognition by authorities that she was used as a 'mule', the mitigating circumstances and that she served the imposed sentence—the panel found there were not serious reasons to consider the offence a serious non-political crime for purposes of Article 1F(b). On the merits the panel found a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of transgender status, that state protection is ineffective and internal flight is not viable, and therefore the claimant is a refugee under section 96 IRPA.

Citation
MA8-04150
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Hearing (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim allowed; claimant found to be a refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and not excluded by Article 1F(b).
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clause Article 1 F(b), Sexual Identity, Transgender, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Exclusion Clause Article 1 F(b) Sexual Identity Transgender Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Hearing (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 1F(b) exclusion for serious non-political crime applies
  2. 2 Whether claimant meets definition of refugee under section 96 IRPA and subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mexico is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Given the totality of circumstances—credibility of the claimant, the humiliating and coercive circumstances of arrest and guilty plea, recognition by authorities that she was used as a 'mule', the mitigating circumstances and that she served the imposed sentence—the panel found there were not serious reasons to consider the offence a serious non-political crime for purposes of Article 1F(b). On the merits the panel found a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of transgender status, that state protection is ineffective and internal flight is not viable, and therefore the claimant is a refugee under section 96 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; claimant found to be a refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and not excluded by Article 1F(b).

Orders

  • Article 1F(b) exclusion not applied to claimant
  • Claim allowed; claimant determined to be a refugee under section 96 IRPA